The Reality Around Israel

I know as I begin to write this that I am opening a can worms that I will struggle to keep contained as the discussion unfolds. But the reality for me is that it is a can that I am simply unable to ignore. I watched the debates and discussions last week as we talked about the incident between the activists who were looking for trouble and the defiant country more than willing to play its part in providing some. I will talk a little bit about that below, but I am am more interested in simply having an honest discussion around Israel. These days, it has become one of two mindsets in America. There are those that despise Israel. And on the other side, those that consider it pure blasphemy to say anything negative about them. I am one of those folks that simply don’t fall into either of those two camps. I am not a giant fan of Israel, but I certainly don’t dislike them either. I see them as an ally, but one that continues to push the bounds of what is acceptable behavior. The question for me, and I think for a growing segment of Americans, is when do we simply say we have had enough?

UN Plan for Israel / Palestine Prior to Israel Being Attacked

Those who fall on the side of “no matter what Israel does I will scream to the heavens that they are wrong,” always seem to fall back on the idea that they don’t deserve the crappy piece of land they were given in the first place. I understand the premise here. But the bottom line on this is that Israel was given the land. The United Nations may have been naive to do so, but they did. Israel has now built cities and infrastructure and defense onto that land. It is theirs now. I get that the Palestinians believe it is their land. We will soon reach a point where there is not a Palestinian alive that was alive when it was “theirs”. The powers of the world, the same ones that have kept Israel from wiping out the Palestinians completely, deemed this to be the new lines on the map. That is not going to change unless someone takes it from Israel. They have done a good job of setting themselves up to make that a difficult proposition. The Palestinians now hold no more claim on that land thanIraq does on Kuwait, Mexico does on Texas, or Rome does on a large swath of Europe (AND Israel, which they ruled for nearly 350 years).

That land is now Israel, like it or not. As such, Israel has a right to protect her citizens and her land. Does she go to far in doing so? Perhaps. We will discuss that below. But they do have the right to protect themselves. When rockets are sent across the border, whether they are effective or not, that is an attack against Israel. And they have the right to protect themselves in the same way we have a right to stop Canada should they begin launching attacks towards North Dakota. The region has a long history of changes in possession. To assume that it belongs rightly to one group or another at this point is to simply be stuck in a pure hatred for Israel and little else. That is both counter-productive in assessing the situation, and it also leads one to refuse reason when it is offered. So let’s stop using that argument as a basis for discussion.

There is the question of whether Israel has throughout their short history been too harsh or hostile towards her neighbors. I tend to fall on the side of “no they were not” for the vast majority of their history. Shortly after their creation, they were attacked by all of the neighbors simultaneously. The repelled that attack. In 1967, her neighbors again plotted to work together to push Israelis out of the region. This time, Israel got wind of what was coming and acted pre-emptively, again thwarting an attempt to destroy her. In 1973, Syria and Egypt, propped up with Russian weaponry and training, attacked Israel on their most holy day. Again the Israeli’s fought back and broke through to threaten Damascus and Cairo, until the United Nations stepped in and brokered a ceasefire.

Hamas Soldiers with their Sticks and Stones

In the 70’s and 80’s, Israel continued to act out against those who threatened her survival. Iraq began developing a nuclear weapons program. Israel struck and wiped it out. Lebanon and Syria began invading Israel through Hezbollah. Israel reacted by invading Lebanon. When Syria sent in their larger air force to contest this, Israel gave them a thorough ass-whipping, downing 83 Syrian planes and losing zero. Just last year, they again found themselves under daily attacks with rockets being fired across their borders. Again they reacted and rolled across the border with overwhelming force.

The point to all of this is that Israel has, throughout their history, been threatened by those around them. Two terrorist organizations have set up shop on her borders (Hezbollaah and Hamas: Funded by the ever peaceful Iran). Interestingly, those who despise Israel are quick to point out that Iran has every right to react to American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan that have not attacked across the border. At the same time, they find a way to justify rockets being launched across the border and expect Israel to do nothing. She is surrounded by nations that despise her and threaten her existence. She is surrounded by organizations that use terrorism as a primary tool, and radical islam as a motivator. Organizations that have succeeded in attacking every single western power in Europe and the United States. Yet opponents of Israel say these people are impotent and not a threat that justifies reaction from Israel.

Israel is constantly referred to as an Imperialistic power who is the aggressor against all her neighbors. Roughly 6 million Jews populate Israel (75% of the Israeli population). Her neighbors have somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million Arabs. That is a ratio of 50:1. And you still choose to believe that she is looking to be the aggressor against the entire Arab population in the Middle East? I have yet to hear Israel announce that she intends to take the land of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, or any other Arab country. This despite the fact that throughout her history every one of those countries invaded Israel. Some of them more than once. Yet the constant claim is that Israel is the aggressor. I simply don’t see it. And I am not a supporter of Israel, as we will discuss below. But reason and logic has to win out at some point.

The question remains…. has Israel reacted too harshly? At times I believe that she has. Israel certainly operates with a chip on her shoulder. But can you really blame Israel. No matter the situation, she is threatened at every turn. Even when the US and her allies acted to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Saddam didn’t hesitate to also launch SCUD missiles into Israel. While there are certainly incidents we can point to where Israel acted without restraint, the real question becomes is there any such thing as restraint when dealing with those who wish to destroy you?

I will say that the answer is no. I do not believe in what others would call a “proportional response.” I believe that if you break into my house, you will likely lose your life. If you invade my country, I would react so harshly that no one would dare attempt to do so again. THAT is war. It sucks. I have been very, very clear and consistent on the fact that I believe only in self defense in regard to the use of the military. But should you choose to force me to defend myself, I will ensure that you don’t get a second chance to catch me off guard later. If I walk into a Dojo and sucker punch the master in the face, I imagine a trip to the hospital is in my future.

Hezbollah's Sticks and Stones

It is horrible to watch as Israeli tanks and armor roll into the West Bank or Gaza against people armed with AK-47’s and stones. But I have yet to see them roll those tanks in without provocation. The people with stones and AK-47’s shouldn’t have launched shitty rockets at the people with tanks and an air force. That is just stupid. And to tell Israel that they have to simply take the abuse and play nice is both unrealistic and unfair. If Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine don’t want to feel threatened by Israel’s superior army, all they have to do is STOP THREATENING AND ATTACKING ISRAEL. Israel has no interest in conquering any of the Middle East. Every single action that Israel takes has something to do with the fact that Arabs want to do harm to Israel. Go ahead and find me a single example of a time that Israel acted that was not in reaction to a threat against Israel of some sort. Find me a single instance of where Israel looked to initiate action to take land from any of her neighbors.

And don’t bother with saying they are occupiers because of their seizure of the Golan Heights or the West Bank. Let’s not forget that they acquired that land in a defensive battle after being invaded by Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon. That you somehow think that country A can attack country B, and then once country B captures your land while pushing the invaders back, country A can call time out and reset the boundaries back to regain the land they lost when they invaded country B. That is like saying that England had the right to end the Revolutionary War and then simply go back the US being British Colonies or else the Americans were occupiers of this territory. To coin a well used phrase….. Bizarre.

Before I move to what I would like to see happen, allow me to first say my small piece about this flotilla incident. First to those claiming Israel is the devil in this situation: If you want to be naive enough to believe that this flotilla was filled with nothing but humanitarian workers who simply wanted to deliver aid to the Palestinians, I guess you are permitted to bury your head in the sand if you like. The fact is that this “aid group” has a history of supporting terrorist organizations. They have been caught before. Does that mean they were doing so this time? No, it doesn’t. But they entered this situation looking for a controversy. They were the only ship of the 6 ship group that decided to attempt to crash through the blockade. They attacked the boarding Israelis with pipes, metal poles, knives, fire bombs, stun grenades, etc. It’s right there on the damn video. Video doesn’t lie.

The videos make it clear that once on board the ship, the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces were definitely in a situation where they feared for their own lives. I saw some pretty brutal beatings taking place there. I saw another video where a firebomb was thrown at them. This group of aid workers came ready to start a fight. What happened before and after these videos is certainly in question. The people on the boat claim that Israelis were firing live rounds before they boarded. While this may be true, I would expect no less from someone on the boat, I highly doubt it. If they were firing live rounds prior to coming on board the boat, they certainly would not have made the decision to send commandos to board the boat with paintball weapons. They are not that stupid. If they were willing to fire live rounds prior to boarding, then the commandos would have boarded with live round automatic weapons, not paintball guns with pistols as a last resort.

Mavi Marmara

As for the time after the video, not much is being said, but I would certainly not be surprised to find that the soldiers went past the point of self defense. Let me tell you a thing or two about being in immediate danger. There are two reactions, fight or flight. More importantly, there are two major emotions, fear and anger. Either of those emotions are overwhelming when you are not given time to think. And either one can compel someone to continue to act when the danger has passed. However, given the relatively low number of casualties, I tend to believe that whatever happened after the initial reaction was not long lasting or overwhelming.

Finally, there is the claim that Israel was acting illegally in boarding a ship such as this in international waters. While that certainly sounds cut and dried, not so fast. There are folks on both sides of this debate with credentials. According to Allen Weiner, former State Department lawyer and legal counselor at the American Embassy in the Hague, and now a professor at Stanford Law School, “The Israeli blockade itself against Gaza itself is not illegal, and it’s okay for Israeli ships to operate in international waters to enforce it.” Israel has cited a provision in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, which states that merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral states outside neutral waters can be intercepted if they “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.” Given the history, Israel had every reason to believe that the vessel could be carrying contraband (both quotes from the Washington Post).

Now, as to the question of Israel herself. I am not a fan. Not because I don’t like Jews or because I don’t believe that they have the right to exist. I am not a fan simply because the United States is so often stuck in the middle of Israel’s relations with her neighbors. We spend a lot of time and resources attempting to broker a peace between parties that have no intention of ever living peacefully with one another. Our unwavering support of Israel, while righteous 75% of the time, contributes to the ignorant fervor that sweeps through Arab countries against America (and sometimes sweeps through SUFA!).

We are all well aware of my position. America should adopt a defense only posture in the world. We should pull our troops back within our borders and let the world know that an attack on us will be the end of their existence. And that applies to Israel as well. We have supported her. We have funded her. We have armed her. And now we should let her either sink or swim on her own. If her neighbors decide that they want to attack her, then the international community will decide whether they are right or wrong to do so. As part of the international community, I would be OK if Israel were attacked and we provided assistance at Israel’s request. If Israel starts the conflict, then she is on her own.

There are many who denounce President Obama for the fact that this administration seems to be shunning Israel. They feel that we are turning our back on her. I disagree. I believe that we are finally beginning to see the effect that our relationship with Israel has on the world’s opinion of us. No country should exist solely because the United States deems it so. This will be the time when Israel is forced to stand on her own. It is time to take the American training wheels off and see if she can ride. Are there consequences for America if an all out war comes in the Middle East? Yes. Without a doubt there are. But we cannot stop what will inevitably happen. We are better served investing our resources and manpower into finding a way to make the Middle East an area of the world that we do not depend on. That begins with reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Which means drilling here, because our dependence on oil isn’t going away any time soon. But that is another article for another day…..

Fire away all. I know it is coming. Let’s see if your FO’s can get you even close to the target.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Mornin All 🙂

    Your right USW, this should open up a can of worms. I’m not to fond of anything in that part of the world, but self defense something I can support. Looking forward to reading along.

    Peace!

    G!

  2. Mathius says:

    Leave Israel Alone!

    • They are among us and the reproduce!!!

      We are so screwed!!

      • Mathius says:

        “One study investigating fertility and education*[citation needed] carried out in 1991 found that high school dropouts in America had the most children (2.5 on average), with high school graduates having fewer children, and college graduates having the fewest children (1.56 on average).[14]”

        *Education used here as a proxy for IQ with a correlation of .55.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

        Quiver in fear. Not only are they breeding, but they’re breeding in higher numbers than us. He/she probably has 15 children already – all on welfare.

        See also: Idiocracy

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      That boy’s Dad must be proud.

      • Boy? Was that a he?

      • Common Man says:

        Matt;

        Thanks for the gut busting laughing fit this morning. If that is not real then that person (I think it is a female) should go into acting; what a preformance!

        CM

  3. Ray Hawkins says:

    As a krav naga student I have become friends with some of the core instructors of the system – many of the same folks who teach to the IDF – albeit a far more lethal form of krav (military style versus civilian). I can assure you that when threatened – the IDF is far more likely to pursue an outcome of finality than the traditional havlagah practiced years ago by the haganah. For years I have wanted to go train with these folks in Netanya, but the safety issue would become too high for mrs. hawkins. I support Israel’s actions – and not to be too obtuse in this point – this is coming from a guy with ojibwa (chippewa) blood in his veins.

    Great article USW – I believe the worms are close to wriggling free from the can.

  4. USW

    As I see it the flaw in your logic is this.

    If you accept that the UN can ESTABLISH a country (Israel) within the borders of another, then you must also accept that the UN can tell Israel to go back to the original borders following there “defensive war” against the aggressors. The fact that Israel took those lands during such conflict is irrelevant. The State of Israel exists by UN declaration and thus Israel should comply with all said connected declarations.

    I wonder what the US citizens would do if the UN suddenly declared a State of Aztlan within the southwestern USA so that indigenous Mexicans could return to their “homeland”?

    • Mathius says:

      Probably use it as a relocation camp for half the immigrant population of Arizona..

    • Cyndi P says:

      Indeed, JAC. It seems the Atzlan movement has a few things in commom with the arabs in Palistine. I wonder how much the Atzlan folks are encouraged by what they see happening in the ME?

      • Cyndi

        Sorry my dear, but it is Israel that represents Aztlan in this example. Only instead of 2010 the year was 1947.

        So the question is whether the US citizens would react any differently than the Arabs/Palestinians in the long run. Would we simply ACCEPT the UN declaration that Aztlan was a new nation?

        • Cyndi P says:

          The only thing I’m sure of about Israel, is that its a few million Jews and Arabs on a tiny piece of land being threanted and harrassed by billions of muslims on an entire continent. That makes them weaker and outnumbered. But, whatever, they’ll be destroyed soon enough and everyone who blames them for the world’s problems will then move on to blaming the US for muslim aggression. Oh wait, they already do that.

          Anyway, allowing the arabs to claim the land was stolen and then giving it to them, will set a dangerous precident. And yes, I’m sure every Progressive in the world would support the UN awarding Atzlan to the ‘victims’. Hell, I would support it just see the spectical of all the Progs enjoying the fruits of their ideology and not have CA screwing up what’s left of the republic.

    • USWeapon says:

      That is an excellent point JAC, but it does somewhat misrepresent, although not intentionally, my position. I do not recognize the UN’s right to give or take away land. Had I been around then, I believe I would have written an article that says they have no right to do so. But history is history. That charter was set up, and now we are 60+ years removed. While I don’t recognize the UN’s right to take that action, I simply accept that the borders are what they are at this point.

      USW

      • USW

        So you do not accept the UN’s ability to grant or take land on behalf of others, yet you accept the existing borders as a right of conquest? Yet those borders would not exist except for the UN action in the first place.

        At its heart this seems like a contradiction to me.

        I understand the desire to be “pragmatic” and accept the existing borders as they are. But this ignores the history, since 1947, and the Israeli’s role in manipulating the expansion they wanted in the first place.

        In short, to support the current boundaries is to support further violence. Israel needs to pull back to the lines sanctioned by the UN or there will be no chance of peace. I am not saying it will come, due to those using religion as their weapon, but it has no chance otherwise.

        This is perhaps the greatest reason for letting them swim, or sink, on their own. I do not believe that either side is an honest broker. We can not win by trying to deal with dishonest people. So withdraw and let them sort it all out.

        Hope your weekend was fun.
        JAC

      • Mathius says:

        Curious.

        What is your threshhold for accepting that things are what they are in this sense?

        For example, you imply that Mexico has no claim on Texas – presumably because we took it so long ago. Israel for the same reason (60+ years) is now in the stage where the Palestinians should “get over it” (putting words in your mouth/keyboard).

        So what is the time-horizon? If Israel was 10 years old? 20? 30?

  5. Bottom Line says:

    USW – “America should adopt a defense only posture in the world. We should pull our troops back within our borders and let the world know that an attack on us will be the end of their existence. And that applies to Israel as well. We have supported her. We have funded her. We have armed her. And now we should let her either sink or swim on her own.”

    BL – Agreed. It isn’t our responsibility to defend Israel. They can handle it just fine all by themselves. Whether they annihilate the Middle East or get annihilated is none of my concern.

    As for the floatilla incident. I don’t care who started it or whether they were justified or not. I just have one question…Who’s the dumb-ass that sent the Israeli boarding crew in with paintball guns?

    If I had to take a position concerning Israel, I would say that we(USA) should have bombed them out of existence in June of 1967.

    • BL:

      They obvious boarded the ship with more than just paintball guns – given they executed an American with 4 head shots….

      • Bottom Line says:

        Yes I know they were armed with more than just paintball guns. It is my understanding that they were also carrying handguns.

        My point is this:

        They boarded a vessel knowing that they were likely to be greeted with hostility. Why would they even bring them? It seems like a pointless waste of personal cargo. Why didn’t they decend from the ropes bearing assault rifles and/or pistols instead of paintball guns? If they were greeted with hostility – Fire at will. If not – hold your fire.

        If you were a general, why would you send your troops into battle with pillows, sling-shots and assault rifles? Why even bring the ineffective pillows and slingshots at all?

        The only reason I could think that they would bring the paintball guns is that they were trying to play the humane victims. Otherwise, it seems pretty stupid.

        They might as well have been packing cheesecake.

  6. Mathius says:

    So here’s how I, the token Jew of SUFA ;), see things:

    Israel is getting picked on. And Israel was founded as a Jewish state. Jews, of course, have been picked on since time immemorial. We are the perennial victims. And here’s what you won’t hear often: We like it that way.

    Yes, you read that right, we (“royal we”)like being picked on because that gives us the moral high ground no matter what we do. We may not be the aggressors, but we sure feed into the cycle with our overreactions and posturing. We carry our metaphorical cross everywhere and rub the collective guilt of millennial of persecution in the faces of the world’s modern sensibilities: Holocaust, Holocaust, slaves in Egypt, Holocaust, Inquisition, victims in the Middle East!

    If you hit me with a stick, I may be justified in running you over with my car in defense, but that’s not necessarily wise. Because the Middle East is an area with a long memory. There are feuds there over that have lasted centuries over the most inconsequential details. So when I run you over, your whole family is going to vow vengeance on me and there’s no escaping. If I’d just shown some restraint…. I know it’s hard, and they’re justified in reacting, but it makes no sense long-term. You have to, have to turn the other cheek if you want to break the cycle. But Israel doesn’t want to break the cycle. They need their victim status.

    But then there’s the other side of the coin. Islam is not inherently evil. But it has been hijacked in that part of the world by evil men. And, because they alone know the truth of God’s will, they are able to channel the anger and frustration of a miserable, poor, uneducated, short and brutal life toward the Zionists rather than where it belongs: the political leaders of those regions. “It’s not our fault your child died of a completely preventable illness because we have no roads or infrastructure or modern medicine – it’s the Jews’ fault because we had to fight a holy war against them for occupying land that Allah has given us and we couldn’t afford to do both. Blame them.”

    And so, the cycle goes round and round. Israel keeps the moral high ground and plays the victim while acting in a justifiable manner of self defense, but not in the smartest long-term ways. And the Palestinian leaders keep their people poor and uneducated and blame the Jews so they can keep their power.

    Round and round she goes.. where she stops, nobody knows..

  7. Ok, here we go:

    Israel’s defensive actions I do not have an issue with. I would imagine, in the America I would like to see, that if we had similar attacks perpetrated on us we would roll with thanks and pound our enemies into the dust. If we have the capacity to do so without civilian casualties, so much the better. If a neighbor invades us, I have no problem taking resources from them in the process of spanking thier butts to cover the cost of the war. If this includes land, no problem. I generally applaud their actions. I generally applaud the attitude they have that “there will never be another Masada“. I am a defense only thinker, especially when it comes to military action, but I am also a strategist. Sometimes, the best defense is to blow a planet sized crater in your opponent before he can hit you. You just have to be sure he was going to hit you. I don’t think Israel has to work very hard to be sure of that.

    Matthius, I appreciate you comments on victim status of Israel and how useful it is, and I agree. There are better things they could do and better ways to handle things that might lead to peace. There is an agenda to what they do.

    I also agree to some extent with JAC that if the UN can give it, the UN can take it away. There is a whole discussion that needs to be had on property ownership and rights. Who gets it, who really owns it, why do they own it, and what if they got it in a bad way or through force or coersion? That even leads to the debate on the international waters thing. If it is international, who declared it as such, and is it their rules we go by? If Israel is within the rules, then they are fine. If they are not, then they are not fine. Ultimately tho, why is that water international? Is the distance from land still valid in modern warfare? We can launch an attack on Spain from the middle of the Atlantic, should they not be able to do anything about our ships coming at them just because we are not in territorial waters?

    I think the ultimate issue in the region is theocracy and emotional feuds. The US has no business being involved. If Israel gets attacked militarily and request our help, a volunteer force with volunteer funding should be sent to kick the crap out of the aggressor. If Israel starts invading one of their neighbors without provocation and the neighbor asks for our help, we do the same. If the UN has jurisdiction on that border dispute because they basically created it, then they should handle it, and there is no need for Israeli or Arab military action. Military aggression should be handled with military action. Border negotiation should be handled with negotiation. If the UN does not have jurisdiction, then we need a reason why not. I need more data on the creation of Israel and who was displaced and why. If it had been part of post-war stuff like the border lines in Europe, then it was part of a treaty, not the UN per se.

    More later…

    • Mathius says:

      I need more data on the creation of Israel and who was displaced and why. Funny thing.. When Israel was created, the British refused to relinquish the forts well past the deadline and gave several of them Illegally. In the run-up to Israel’s official creation, the local leaders, spurred on by neighboring governments, convinced their people (the existent inhabitants of the territory that was to be transferred to Israel) that Israel’s first actions would be to murder them. Further, the Zionist Jews were not only plotting to “steal” their land and desecrate their shines, but also to poison wells causing widespread impotence and diarrhea – a scary combination to be sure.

      As such, a mass exodus (pun intended) fled Israel – forfeiting their lands and homes. Then they claimed victim status since they were “evicted”.

      • Mathius says:

        Clarification: the British refused to relinquish their forts well past the UN deadline and gave several of them – illegally – to Israel’s enemies.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Jon said >

      “I also agree to some extent with JAC that if the UN can give it, the UN can take it away.”

      I say >

      That is not exactly what JAC said. Don’t make him out to be an Indian giver. JAC is a straight up guy. 😉

      • Puritan

        Thank you for the defense in my absence. Been a little busy this morning.

        You are correct, that is NOT what I was saying.

        🙂

        • Did not mean to say that you were. I was saying that I agree with what I thought you were saying which was: IF you accept that the UN has the authority to create nations and give them borders/lands, then you must, to be consistent, accept their authority to change that as well, since that is essentially what happened the first time.

          That does not imply that you were saying you support such a thing, nor that you support the UN’s authority, nor even the UN itself in any way. Its just that if the Israeli nation and national borders was created by the UN and one accepts the legitimacy of that, then why not accept it again?

  8. Common Man says:

    Everyone;

    OK, so 10 years from now we have withdrawn all foriegn based troops and at the same time adopted the ideal of “military force only when provoked or threatened”. The Middle East settles down, violence decreasses, Israel is left alone and Palistine relocates to a small section in Egypt as their own country. All is good with the world. Then…..

    Russia strikes a deal with Cuba and Cuba becomes an adopted country of Russia. As a result Russia decides to build a large Military base in Cuba/Russia. Do we allow that to happen?

    At the same time Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia unite and petition the UN to return those countries/regions back to their historical origin of Mesopotamia. After that petition is ratified by the UN They then increase the development of a unified military and nuclear arms and energy sites

    China and North Korea merge, don’t petition for UN support and at the same time decide to invade South Korea.

    I realize these senerios are a bit far fetched, but what if? Do we stand off to the side and keep our mouths shut?

    I am one for getting out of the Middle East altogether so that those countries can fight it out amongst themselves, however I am looking for some guidelines here on just how much we (America) draw in the horns.

    Where do we draw the line?

    CM

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      CM,

      The key question is, how does any of the stuff you mentioned effect the United States, and to what degree? If any of that stuff happened, what do YOU feel would be the appropriate response by the US, and why?

      I would personally hope that if the US adopted the “commerce with all and alliances with none” mantra proposed by Jefferson, that this would be successful and would be emulated by other countries, thereby de-legitimizing regimes which would use violence upon their own people or others.

      I would think that if every country adopted the policy of “Be civil with us, we trade with you, be hostile towards us we ostracize you, and attack us we crush you” it would be very effective in making beligerant yo-yos leading countries a thing of the past.

      However, we all know that there is evil in the world and evil seeks power. Defending ourselves against evil by (A) making it look silly and ridiculous and (B) crushing it if it attacks us, should hopefully be sufficient, and would hopefully be an example others would follow.

      Doing the morally correct thing is not always easy, and can even put you in potential danger. Are those sufficient reasons to act in a way that is not morally correct? The answer to that question goes a long way to determining if we ever have a shot at really being a free or not.

      This seems a bit rambling now that I proofread it, but I am not sure how I would change it to make it more understandable 🙂

      • Mathius says:

        attack us we crush you” And how does one crush an enemy that does not represent a specific country and/or geographical area?

        This seems a bit rambling now that I proofread it, but I am not sure how I would change it to make it more understandable Been there.

      • Common Man says:

        Peter;

        I am not sure I have any answers, although I am in agreement relative to the conceot of “free trade”. But, do you apply your own morals when deciding who to trade with? If so, then we could not trade with any ‘isum’ based country could we?

        I can tell you that on an individual level if a neighbor decided to threaten my family by broadcasting specific threats to them and at the same time started building bombs, I may not wait to see if he was serious.

        There have been very few times in my life that I have initiated violence upon another who was not demonstrating me any threat. But on the occasion or two that I initiated action, because of a ‘felt’ threat, I quickly determined I was in a situation that I had better strike first, because otherwise I probably would not have been able to strike at all.

        I am just looking to see how most here feel we should act once we have adopted an “everyone for themselves” approach?

        Evil begats evil as long as evil has fuel to feed its growth. A bully will continue to bully as long as no one stops him/her, and they gain strength from fear. Allow them to continue their growth and eventually they will get around to starting something with you.

        Realizing it is a subjective question: How far do we let the evil progress?

        To put it into a more ‘current’ ideal we are now dealing with a national government that a great number believe is knowingly violating the Constitution, over taxing its citizens, creatinig a national debt we cannot recover from and eliminating a great many of our rights and liberties. Yet, we are not doing anything other than voicing our opposition.

        Where is the line in the sand?

        CM

      • Voluntary military response to countries under attack. Military build-up to completely flatten Cuba if it launches, before the missiles can even get off the ground. IF we do not have that ability, then some clear determination of threat level and likelihood of using said potential.

  9. USWep,

    Good for you for your bravery to walk willing into a mine field.

    Too bad your argument is so flawed.

    I see them as an ally, but one that continues to push the bounds of what is acceptable behavior.

    Please tell me how you believe they are the USA’s ally?

    They allow the US to base there? No. Never have.

    They send their troops in support of US foreign policy? No. Never have.

    They have NEVER acted as an ally toward the USA.

    They purposely bombed US civilians -covertly under the false flag of Egyptian extremists- to provoke US entry into war against Egypt. (King David Hotel bombing)

    They purposely attack US naval ship in international waters in an attempt to blame Egypt so to provoke US entry into 1973 war. This action resulted in the award of a Medal of Honor, but which was only awarded by the “ok” of Israel.


    The citation did not mention that the deadly assault was carried out by Israeli military forces, and, unbelievably, the medal was awarded only after U.S. officials received assurances that the Israeli government had no objections.

    Breaking with time-honored tradition, the president of the United States took no personal part in the presentation ceremony.

    He had it moved away from the White House—and the news media. While President Johnson spent the day in the White House, the medal was given to McGonagle by the Navy secretary in an unpublicized ceremony at the obscure Washington Navy Yard.

    Admiral Thomas Moorer, who had become chief of naval operations a few months earlier, had protested without success over the denigrating arrangements, urging that the medal be presented in the traditional manner. He later said, “The way they did things, I’m surprised they didn’t just hand it to him under the 14th Street Bridge.”

    Israel has spied on the US, stole nuclear secrets, sold US secrets to American adversaries …. and I have yet to find any evidence of Israeli acts for which to define it as an ally – though there are plenty to define it as an adversary.

    Compare Israel to Canada and the definition of ally as applied to Israel is sickening.

    Israel has now built cities and infrastructure and defense onto that land.

    Palestinians built cities and infrastructure onto that land. Why is not their land?

    It is theirs now. I get that the Palestinians believe it is their land. We will soon reach a point where there is not a Palestinian alive that was alive when it was “theirs”.

    But we reached that point with the Jews – 95% of them came from Russia and none where any of them were alive when its was “theirs”.

    Yet you admit there are Palestinians still alive whose land has been stolen.

    Yet, you defer to the Israelis who stole it over those who rightfully held it. Strange, no?

    So if it is good enough for the Jews to claim, why is it not good enough for the Palestinians?

    If it is to suffer for the Palestinians, why is it not enough for Jews to suffer the same?

    The Palestinians now hold no more claim on that land than Iraq does on Kuwait, Mexico does on Texas, or Rome does on a large swath of Europe (AND Israel, which they ruled for nearly 350 years).

    So your claim is that a people can seize another people’s land by force, therefore they no longer hold any claim to that land?

    You do realize you have justified Seizure of Land by Conquestwhich is a war crime.

    That land is now Israel, like it or not. As such, Israel has a right to protect her citizens and her land.

    So you argue that if a thief steals your house, he has a right to defend it against you.

    And they have the right to protect themselves in the same way we have a right to stop Canada should they begin launching attacks towards North Dakota.

    What a ridiculous analogy.

    Iraq seized Kuwait. By your argument, the land became Iraq’s and Iraq had a right to stop anyone from taking it back.

    Are you sure you want to stand on that side of the debate, USWep?

    Two terrorist organizations have set up shop on her borders (Hezbollaah and Hamas: Funded by the ever peaceful Iran).

    Jewish terrorist organizations:
    Irgun —
    “The policy of the new organization was based squarely on Jabotinsky’s teachings: every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”.

    The Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel’s right-wing Herut (or “Freedom”) party, which led to today’s Likud party. Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977.

    Haganah
    – forrunner of the IDF

    Stern Gang
    etc. etc…..

    These forces attacked and killed US and British citizens (as well as Arabs, moderate Jews, and Palestinians)

    Even when the US and her allies acted to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Saddam didn’t hesitate to also launch SCUD missiles into Israel.

    Yet, you fail to mention Israel’s initiation by attacking Iraq’s French built nuclear facility…. a facility operated and inspected by IAEC, France and the USA.

    …the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June of 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs.

    While there are certainly incidents we can point to where Israel acted without restraint, the real question becomes is there any such thing as restraint when dealing with those who wish to destroy you?

    Yep, the threat of people whose primary weapon is rocks is systemic and fundamental strategic threat to Israel….

    Your augment here sickens me, USWep.

    If Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine don’t want to feel threatened by Israel’s superior army, all they have to do is STOP THREATENING AND ATTACKING ISRAEL. Israel has no interest in conquering any of the Middle East.

    Israel has failed to abide by its founding document – which required the return of refugees.

    Israel has failed to abide by its UN obligation – and committed war crimes by seizing territory by conquest.

    Israel has failed to abide by hundreds of UN resolutions.

    Israel has failed to stop building in occupied territories.

    Israel recently attacked Lebanon and its citizens without cause.

    ..and you demand EVERYONE ELSE to stop attacking – but you go BLIND to the cause.

    And don’t bother with saying they are occupiers because of their seizure of the Golan Heights or the West Bank.

    Of course, because you are immune to the truth.

    They are occupiers

    The videos make it clear that once on board the ship, the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces were definitely in a situation where they feared for their own lives.

    Interestingly, you did not link to the FULL VIDEO – but just the edited version of the IDF.

    Here is the link to the whole video without IDF edits:
    (www) youtube.com/watch?v=MB-Mk4bFz-U

    An American, bloodied by the IDF, tells his story:
    (www) dot youtube.com/watch?v=QeUhwELoKWo

    Israeli photos of the “weapons” were faked

    Proof has surfaced today that many of the so-called “evidence” photographs being distributed by the Israeli government as examples of terror weapons on board the Gaza aid flotilla date back years:

    The bulletproof vest photos on the Israeli flickr page are dated February 2006.

    The axe photo was taken in 2003.

    The pepper spray photos – 2003

    Captured and detained by Israel, an American tells his story
    (www) dot salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/03/paul_larudee_flotilla_account
    Passengers protecting and aiding IDF soliders.
    (http) slashslash: twitpic.com/1uierf

    We Bought The Bullets
    (http) slashslash: freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/06/we-bought-bullets.html


    The hijacking of the truth: Film evidence ‘destroyed’

    (www) independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-hijacking-of-the-truth-film-evidence-destroyed-1992517.html


    Did the IDF Execute Mavi Marmara Victims?

    (www) counterpunch.org/lindorff06072010.html


    IDF admits doctoring audio of raid on Gaza flotilla

    (http) slashslash: rawstory.com/rs/2010/0606/idf-admits-doctoring-audio-gaza-flotilla/

    Finally, there is the claim that Israel was acting illegally in boarding a ship such as this in international waters. While that certainly sounds cut and dried, not so fast. There are folks on both sides of this debate with credentials. According to Allen Weiner, former State Department lawyer and legal counselor at the American Embassy in the Hague, and now a professor at Stanford Law School, “The Israeli blockade itself against Gaza itself is not illegal, and it’s okay for Israeli ships to operate in international waters to enforce it.” Israel has cited a provision in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, which states that merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral states outside neutral waters can be intercepted if they “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.” Given the history, Israel had every reason to believe that the vessel could be carrying contraband (both quotes from the Washington Post).

    Try using some unbiased people. American Embassy?? Washington Post??

    Almost every other nation on earth has stated that the attack was illegal.

    In a previous post to D13, I laid out the specifics of San Remo and International Law.

    San Remo specifically states that the action was illegal as it did NOT fulfill the exceptions (piracy and slavery – which, ironically, is PRECISELY what Israel did … an act of piracy)

    Specifically in International Law – the action could only be justified if the matter was pending or unaddressed by the UN Security Council. But Resolution 1860 did specifically address the issue – thus, the Israeli action is beyond a shadow of a doubt illegal.

    • Mathius says:

      Curious about your concept of property rights, Flag.

      I generally agree that land taken by conquest is not the rightful property of the conqueror. That said, how does anyone own anything? How do you own your land when it was stolen from Native American Indians?

      Most probably, the land was stolen by that tribe from another tribe and they from yet another tribe. Back and back and back to the ice bridge that got them all here in the first place.

      If a man came up to you with documents tracing his lineage to the original inhabitants of the land and others showing that it was taken at the point of a musket, would you forfeit your home to him?

      So,

      A) Is the fact that you, personally, didn’t steal it sufficient to assuage your morality despite the knowledge that it was, at some point, seized by force?

      B) Do you hold ignorance to be a defense – that is, if you are not 100% sure that it was stolen, you are morally justified in “owning” it? (Can you buy something from a known thief and say it’s ok because you don’t know that it was stolen?)

      C) If I steal your car and sell it to another man, surely I am immoral, but is he also immoral if he deliberately doesn’t ask any questions? Whose car is it at this point? Why?

      D) Who owns a specific point of land in what is now Israel? Is it the Jew currently occupying it? The Palestian who had it before? The descendant of the Roman before him? The descendant of the Hittite before him? The descendant of the Babylonian before him? The descendant of the Sumarian before him? The descendant of the unknown person from the times before the written word who was the first man to build a mud hut there?

      • Mathius,

        I generally agree that land taken by conquest is not the rightful property of the conqueror. That said, how does anyone own anything?

        The right of conquest is the purported right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms.

        It was traditionally a principle of international law which has in modern times gradually given way until its proscription after the second world war when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally as a United Nations resolution 3314.

        So, first argument:
        Right of Conquest existed up until WW2 (which covers the Indian Wars). After WW2, regardless of your belief of Right by Conquest, such a Right does not exist.

        Israel is a UN member. It is bound by its voluntary treaty to subject itself by such a treaty – and one of the core, fundamental tenants of the UN is the abolition of Right of Conquest

        • Mathius says:

          That doesn’t really answer the question, sir.

          Your response would imply that you believe morality is defined by international law. I know this isn’t the case.

          Regardless of what the law says, you either believe in the right of conquest (for all times and all places) or you do not (for all times and all places).

          Is what you are saying is that it was ok to take by conquest from the indians because the law didn’t say you can’t but now it is not ok to take land by conquest because it was codified in United Nations resolution 3314?

          • Mathius,

            That doesn’t really answer the question, sir.

            Per post topic, I think it does.

            No matter which understanding you may hold regarding Right of Conquest, it did not exist past 1945.

            Your response would imply that you believe morality is defined by international law.

            Morals and Laws do not co-exist.

            Regardless of what the law says, you either believe in the right of conquest (for all times and all places) or you do not (for all times and all places).

            For me, Right by Conquest is not a right – now or in the past or in the future.

            Is what you are saying is that it was ok to take by conquest from the indians because the law didn’t say you can’t but now it is not ok to take land by conquest because it was codified in United Nations resolution 3314?

            Treaties were made with the Indians. Those treaties were broken and remade, broken and remade.

            Which treaty is the Rightful treaty? I dunna-know…(shrug)

            • Mathius says:

              If I place a contract on the table in front of you and say “in 10 seconds, either your signature or your brains are going to be on that paper”, do you consider yourself bound by the “agreement”?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                um, I would not consider myself to be bound by such an “agreement”, no.

              • Mathius says:

                Then how do we justify the “transfer” of lands from Native Americans to the US? If the US does not own the land, then how could it have been sold to you?

                Adding, a whopping 100 Mathius Points to anyone who can name the reference – strict honor code, no use of search engines permitted.

              • Displaced Okie says:

                My New York Italian wife would have me wearing cement shoes if I didn’t know a Godfather quote…

              • Mathius says:

                Well done, DO!

                +100 Points

              • Mathius,

                Your historical reference is missing to this event is missing.

              • Mathius says:

                huh?

              • Mathius,

                re:HuH?

                What event are you imagining that had guns to peoples head to sign a treaty?

              • Mathius says:

                Displaced Okie got the reference: The Godfather.

                But in terms of the Indians, it’s metaphor – we basically said move or die, and you consider it a valid sale somehow.

            • Mathius says:

              It seems you are hiding behind willful ignorance – that, in the absence of conclusive evidence – you are justified in possessing land which was stolen.

              If, as you say, you do not believe that ownership by conquest is a right, then by implication, we can assume you also believe that ownership by threat of conquest is also not a right. Therefore, the transfer of land via “peace treaties” is not legitimate. Thus the proper ownership of the land was never transferred to the United States. Thus, it could never have been transferred to you.

              So, while you do not know who the proper owner of the land is, you know it is not you. Thus you are trespassing.

              I assume you do not agree with line of reasoning. Please explain at length, using at least three nested block quotes and five-part harmony in iambic pentameter.

              • Mathius,

                absence of conclusive evidence

                No, but the other way – the onus is upon those who make claims against my peace

              • Mathius says:

                Possession is 9/10’s of the law?

              • Mathius,

                (/10

                I guess it depends on what 1/10 remains.

              • Mathius says:

                The remaining tenth is this:

                A long time ago, we had a conversation about the morality repossessing a pile of gold. At the time, you made me go to extremes to prove that it had no rightful owner; even going so far as to locate the found gold on the moon next to a corpse who left a note signed in blood lamenting his lack of an heir to give the gold to. Your response, if I recall correctly: “well then I guess it’s yours except… are you sure no one owns the moon?” Recall that conversation?

                So there seems to be a disconnect between your insistence there that you be 100% certain before you can claim something and your willingness here to claim land that you have a reasonable cause to believe was taken by force from it’s former owners.

              • Mathius,
                No disconnect.

                I think JAC has the track, and you should work that thread.

                In such matters, there are peaceful means to determine ownership.

                Work on that.

      • Mathius

        You forget we stole North American fair and square.

        We pushed them into war and then fought for our “migrants” safety according to the treaties we signed.

        Then after reducing red man to near extinction, we asked if they would turn over title.

        They did.

        The only real issue is that they didn’t have title to begin with. At least under their own laws. They simply had the right of possession, according to ancient principles of natural law property rights.

        • Mathius says:

          Thanks, JAC!

          My question stands: Who is the “rightful” owner of the land upon which “your” house is built?

          -You bought it from Bob Smith.
          -Bob Smith inherited it from his father who inherited it from his father.
          -Grandpa Smith bought it from Bill Johnson.
          -The land has been in Bill Johnson’s family since 1650.
          -In 1650, the land belongs to the Sioux Indians.
          -The Sioux “sold” it because they were told that failure to make some mark on some paper that said something in some language they couldn’t speak let alone read would result in their death.
          -The Sioux held the land for 150 years. Prior to that, when it belonged to a now-extinct tribe. The survivors of that tribe joined other tribe and their lineage continues to modern day.
          -That tribe acquired it in battle from a third tribe.
          -That tribe acquired it from yet another tribe in battle – no records remain about who they were or how they came into possession of the land. This was in the year 511 AD. The land was originally settled some time around 10,000 BC.

          Who does the land belong to?

          • Mathius

            I own the land, today.

            Why?

            Because of the laws of the United States.

            Title to my land can be traced to the time it was acquired by Treaty from the Indians here. Who had it before them is not relevant as they were extinct before the current tribes came here.

            There are no Spanish land grants involved so the Title is clear.

            Who owned the land before the Indians the US acquired it from is not relevant. For at that point in time a new concept and formal system of recording ownership was established and put on paper.

            • Mathius says:

              Because of the laws of the United States. So whatever the laws of the United States say is correct and ethical?

              And they say I’m a statist…

              • No!. You are making great leaps in logic, or argument.

                Laws governing the recording and transfer of property ownership evolved over time and were part of common law. These rules were transferred to formal laws.

                That can not be said for ALL laws of the United States.

                And supporting such procedures and rules for resolving disputes is not a STATIST view. But yes, you are a Statist.

            • Mathius says:

              Title to my land can be traced to the time it was acquired by Treaty from the Indians here. It doesn’t matter that it was taken by force / threat of force?

            • Mathius says:

              Who owned the land before the Indians the US acquired it from is not relevant. For at that point in time a new concept and formal system of recording ownership was established and put on paper. Ownership rights are only valid and worthy of recognition if they are formally recorded and put on paper?

              • Most of the time. That is the “procedure” established by “civilized men” for resolving disputes over ownership.

                But lets not confuse “valid” and “worthy”. The issue is validation of ownership when such is under dispute.

                Without such “paper records” we fall back to the word of one against the other.

                Interestingly this still is applicable and can override “paper” ownership in states that allow “prescriptive” rights.

            • Ooh, this one is at the core of a lot of stuff. The right to property has been included in the natural rights discussions on SUFA for quite some time. I myself believe in them. However, this ownership of land is a HUGE issue philosophically.

              IF the ownership of property, land in this case, is a legitimate right based on the laws of this country, then it cannot be a natural right. If property ownership is a natural right, then it must be based on some concept of ownership outside of the laws of a country.

              It could be transactional, if both parties agree without coercion, then it is legitimately owned. Of course, does that mean that, once a piece of property is sold in a voluntary transaction it wipes out previous ownership history? How about if it was stolen by the seller? Is a fence, then, not doing anything wrong when they buy stuff from thieves and sell them to other people?

              And then there is the question of the idea of the Native Americans. They did not believe in land ownership, they believed it was shared or owned by the Great Spirit or whatever. So how do you have a transaction with someone like that? Is it possible? If not, since it is not legitimate if it is not voluntary, then is there any right to the property for anyone? How does one handle unowned property? Who can have that? Is it back to possession? First come, first serve? That doesn’t sound far from Manifest Destiny.

              Granted once the initial owners no longer live, such disputes are out of date, but are they? Can you will ownership to stolen goods? Most importantly, what is a natural property right, how is it defined, and if, in fact property rights are not natural rights, then does the entire concept of the free market fall apart?

              I think I need to write an article about this, or someone does.

              • Jon

                This is a really big topic and probably does deserve more detailed discussion of its own.

                But I do want to take exception to one point.

                “IF the ownership of property, land in this case, is a legitimate right based on the laws of this country, then it cannot be a natural right.”

                My point is that it can be a right under USA law AND it can be a natural right under natural law as well as under common law.

                On most of these subjects I try to avoid the concept of “natural law” as the philosophy of law falls after the more basic fields of metaphysics and epistemology. These form the foundation, or should, for “law”.

                I prefer to use “common law” as our reference point because that is the law that has evolved over time as a result of human interaction designed to perpetuate our peaceful existence.

                Perhaps the “right to property” under “natural law” coincides with our “right to life”?

              • Perhaps, my point was more that if it is a right that did not exist previously, until a governmental law permitted it to exist, then it is not natural law.

                If you are only talking about common law, that is a different matter, but the rights discussions here tend to define rights as things that are not given by government, but exist regardless. This flies in the face of that definition.

                Now, if we are talking about laws that evolve, then we have a shifting foundation, one that can be shifted again. At that point, the only basis is what works rationally, there is no longer a philosophical absolute. That may not make my philosophy irrelevant, but it certainly means I have to do a lot of proving. It just opens up a lot of questions about rights and the philosophies associated with them. It certainly kicks anarchy in the head pretty hard.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Jon – sorry if I am late to this – there is research that casts serious doubt on perceptions that Native Americans had no concept of land ownership (or, I think as you put it – “they did not believe in land ownership, they believed it was shared or owned by the Great Spirit or whatever”). There are several tribes that appeared to have evolved ownership systems. Most tribes congregated to a specific geographic area – and while they may not have constructed fences – some did quarrel with one another over lands. On the whole – land was forcible taken from Native Americans (see “Trail of Tears”). Actions such as the Dawes Act were passed to forcibly assimilate Native Americans into the new cultural milieu.

                Manifest Destiny sounds better than forced and/or violent removal of Native Americans

                American Indian Collectivism: http://www.perc.org/articles/article802.php

              • Agreed, there was some idea of ownership, or at least recognition of territory before. It was still predominately tribal, at least in North America. Tribes has hierarchies and the leaders had the better homes, etc., but the tribes still “owned” certain regions.

                Regardless of their concepts, however, it is inarguable that the land was taken by force, not viable transaction. Even when territories were set by treaty, such contracts were violated by us, making the ownership even less valid. Not a proud time for humanity.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Agreed – thanks Jon

    • USWeapon says:

      BF,

      As expected, you react with selective interpretation and mixed recognition.

      Don’t get yourself too tied up in this definition of “ally” and whether they are or are not an ally. They are an ally in the same way that roughly 90% of the world is our ally. We have trade with them and they are not currently threatening to do harm to American assets or citizens. I am not looking for them to do anything “for” us or anything like that. We can remain her ally without providing for her defense or doing anything militarily. She can do the same. That Israel has committed the acts that they did I will not dispute as I have not researched them. But I am not interested in arguing whether they are truly “allies” or not. It is not important to my argument or my suggested course of action.

      You continue to selectively use history to bolster your argument. I, instead, will rely on the here and now. We cannot attempt to go back through history and alter every line on every map based on a belief that conquest of land is not legitimate. To do so would so drastically alter the world that you would cause massive situations just like Israel and Palestine. You believe the legitimate thing to do is give Palestine back the land. So are you suggesting that the US be abandoned and given back to Mexico and the native American population? All of Europe now belongs again to Rome? There comes a point where the childish squabbling has to stop. The borders are now what they are. If Israel attempted to expand them now, I would oppose it. If anyone attempts to take land away from Israel, I would oppose it. The world now exists as it is. If we start moving backwards to correct every border along historical lines, chaos would ensue. The prudent move today is to accept where we are and allow no further “conquest” of land. I am positive that you would accept that position if you were not so blinded by your hatred of Israel.

      It is interesting that you pick and choose where you think the UN and other world bodies are legitimate. The UN is illegitimate, except when you can find an instance where Israel did not do what the UN said to do. Then Israel is clearly wrong and the UN is legitimate. Government bodies are illegitimate, dishonest, and not trustworthy, unless it is an opinion from the IAEC that supports your belief. Then a government opinion is accurate and proof positive of your position. Interestingly, when the IAEC states something that you disagree with, you immediately find more “proof” that their ruling is not legitimate. I see that government legitimacy is directly tied to whether that government body issues a finding that you agree or disagree with.

      Yep, the threat of people whose primary weapon is rocks is systemic and fundamental strategic threat to Israel…

      You are such a drama monger. Their primary weapons are not rocks. Perhaps you missed the pictures above. I don’t believe that those are rocks that are being launched across Israel’s borders. I don’t believe that you are purposefully naive on this subject, so the question becomes why exactly you attempt to misrepresent the truth.

      If their primary weapons were rocks, I don’t believe Israel would roll into Gaza with tanks to stop rocks from being thrown across their border. They would simply not locate anything within a stone’s throw of the border. It almost angers me that someone as smart as you intentionally misrepresents the situation in this way.

      But the reality is this. If you don’t want the tank to roll into town, don’t fire rockets across the border. It is a simple concept. One that you apparently refuse to acknowledge. Don’t provoke Israel. Don’t kidnap Israelis soldiers, launch rockets across her borders, or send suicide bombers into her country. Israel’s neighbors do all those things and then you say she attacked unprovoked….. to coin your phrase again…. Bizarre.

      Israel has failed to abide by its UN obligation – and committed war crimes by seizing territory by conquest.

      Israel’s neighbors attacked her first…. but I guess they had no obligation to abide by the UN’s ruling.

      Israel has failed to abide by hundreds of UN resolutions.

      Why would you care. The UN is an illegitimate organization anyway! The UN had no right, according to you, to create Israel. So why would you care whether anyone abides by the UN’s resolutions. This is again where you are lost in your world of legitimacy only when they support your point.

      Israel recently attacked Lebanon and its citizens without cause.

      You sure have a selective memory. From Wiki: The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence. The ambush left five soldiers dead or mortally wounded and two of the soldiers were taken to Lebanon (later known to be dead). Five more were killed in a failed Israeli rescue attempt. Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon.

      Thanks for the links to the videos. I will watch them when I have time. Interesting that you post a video from one of the people who were attacking Israeli soldiers as they boarded the ship, and then tell me that I need to find unbiased sources. I am sure that person’s description of the events was not biased at all.

      Where I got the quotes doesn’t matter. Washington Pst or not. The point is that here is a guy who’s specialty is international law, who teaches it at one of the best law schools in the country. And his opinion differs from your opinion. There are lots of people on both sides of this issue. The point was it is not as cut and dry as you attempt to present it to be.

  10. The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state.

    The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless.

    With every new conflict their numbers increased.

    How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty?

    It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict.

    No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled in masses from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate?

    A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East.

    We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. […]

    What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy.

    —Bertrand Russell, 31 January 1970

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      Isreal was not given by “a foreign power”, it was given by The United Nations. The UN was the entity that declared Israel to be a State, and set forth the boundaries of that State. Of course, I suppose you could claim that at that time the UN was merely a “coalition of foreign powers”.

      It is true that Israel currenly occupies land which is outside of these original boundaries which it has taken by force.

      However, it is also true that the United States is almost wholly made up of lands taken by force from various people over the past 400 years or so.

      Almost every part of Europe has been taken by force MANY TIMES over thousands of years. The same is true of Arabia, China, and virtually anywhere on the globe which is occupied by humanity.

      All of that being said, please give us a cogent, clear definition of what constitutes RIGHTFUL property ownership, and given the fact that almost all land anywhere has changed hands (ususally multiple times) in the past 1000 years due to armed conflict, is it EVEN POSSIBLE for anyone to claim that they rightfully own property? Is there a time scale involved where the fact that at one point the property was obtained by force becomes no longer relevant to claiming current ownership?

      I am certainly not saying that I agree with every action taken by Israel. FAR FROM IT. A lot of things that Israel does are just plain wrong. The same also goes for a lot of people/countries who are enemies of Israel. One evil does not justify another, but it is almost guaranteed that one evil will cause another evil in response to it.

      If you want to blaim Israel for all of the problems in the middle east, go for it. Ultimately, you should proabably be blaiming the UN in 1947 for coming up with/giving into the whole idea in the first place.

      Of course, you would have to go back several thousand years to trace the original source of the problems, at least in my opinion.

      • Peter,

        it was given by The United Nations

        No, in fact is was UK, under its Palestinian Mandate.

      • Peter,

        …to trace the original source of the problems

        No, you have to go back to 1917 and Lenin’s expulsion of Jews out of Russia.

        Why do you think so many Jews lived in Poland and Germany?

        • 250 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Carthage
          415 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Alexandria
          554 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Diocèse of Clermont (France)
          561 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Diocèse of Uzès (France)
          612 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Visigoth Spain
          642 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Visigoth Empire
          855 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Italy
          876 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Sens
          1012 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
          1182 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
          1182 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Germany
          1276 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Upper Bavaria
          1290 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – England
          1306 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
          1322 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France (again)
          1348 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Switzerland
          1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hielbronn (Germany)
          1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Saxony
          1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
          1360 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
          1370 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Belgium
          1380 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Slovakia
          1388 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Strasbourg
          1394 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Germany
          1394 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
          1420 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lyons
          1421 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Austria
          1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Fribourg
          1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Zurich
          1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Cologne
          1432 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Savoy
          1438 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
          1439 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Augsburg
          1442 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
          1444 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
          1446 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bavaria
          1453 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
          1453 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Breslau
          1454 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurzburg
          1462 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
          1483 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
          1484 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Warsaw
          1485 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vincenza (Italy)
          1492 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Spain
          1492 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Italy
          1495 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lithuania
          1496 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
          1496 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Portugal
          1498 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Nuremberg
          1498 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Navarre
          1510 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenberg
          1510 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prussia
          1514 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Strasbourg
          1515 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Genoa
          1519 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Regensburg
          1533 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
          1541 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
          1542 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague & Bohemia
          1550 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Genoa
          1551 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bavaria
          1555 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Pesaro
          1557 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague
          1559 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Austria
          1561 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague
          1567 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurzburg
          1569 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Papal States
          1571 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenburg
          1582 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
          1582 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
          1593 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenburg, Austria
          1597 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
          1614 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Frankfort
          1615 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Worms
          1619 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Kiev
          1648 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Ukraine
          1648 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Poland
          1649 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hamburg
          1654 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Little Russia (Beylorus)
          1656 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lithuania
          1669 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Oran (North Africa)
          1669 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vienna
          1670 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vienna
          1712 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Sandomir
          1727 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russia
          1738 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurtemburg
          1740 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Little Russia (Beylorus)
          1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague, Bohemia
          1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Slovakia
          1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Livonia
          1745 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Moravia
          1753 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Kovad (Lithuania)
          1761 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bordeaux
          1772 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Deported to the Pale of Settlement (Poland/Russia)
          1775 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Warsaw
          1789 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Alsace
          1804 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Villages in Russia
          1808 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Villages & Countrysides (Russia)
          1815 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lbeck & Bremen
          1815 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
          1820 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bremen
          1843 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russian Border Austria & Prussia
          1862 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Areas in the U.S. under General Grant’s Jurisdiction[1]
          1866 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Galatz, Romania
          1880s – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russia
          1891 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Moscow

          So going back 1500 years, when were they expelled from Palestine?????

  11. Helen Thomas Retiring Effective Immediately

    …too bad. She was the last one who actually challenged White House propaganda.

    However, her emotional outburst regarding Jews was her undoing.

    • Mathius says:

      Damn.. I really liked here..

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I find it amusing in a strange sort of way that in order to be politically correct in this country right now, you have to have a real “love/hate relationship” with Israel, but you have to severely limit what you say on either side.

      If you come out too heavily on the “love” side, you are “racist” against muslims, and if you come out too heavily on the “hate” side you are “anti-semetic”.

      Of course neither the Jews or the Arabs are actually a “race”, so in reality none of it really makes any sense, but hey, that is what makes it FUN!

    • Common Man says:

      BF;

      From my point of view, Helen Thomas will NOT be missed.

      CM

    • USWeapon says:

      It may have been her undoing, but it was her clearly biased version of journalism that made me tune her out. For the same reason I tune out the vast majority of “journalists”.

      Good riddance.

  12. Common Man says:

    BF;

    I maybe opening a new and huge can of worms here, and I will check my Biblical history to make sure, but wasn’t it God that gave the Jews their homeland in the first place as the choosen people?

    If we go with ‘natural law’ and ideology of a ‘Supreme-being’ is it not the right of the Israelites to live within the ‘promised land’ until Judgement day?

    And if in fact that is true, should they not also be allowed to protect themselves?

    CM

    • CM,

      God that gave the Jews their homeland in the first place as the choosen people

      So if I quote from the Holy Book of Echoristha, that says “God gave me your house”, ….

      … I can Rightfully come and take it from you?

      • USWeapon says:

        Good point…. but it begs another.

        Both peoples claim the legitimate right to the land we call Israel. Who are you going to determine who actually has the right to it?

        • USWep,

          The answer is too easy, I’m surprised it confuses you.

          Whether or not Canada rules North America or not….

          …your house is your house.

          Let the People back into their homes.

          They do not care if it is called Palestine, Israel or Lala land

          …it is still their house.

          • The biggest issue, BF, is that they DO care what it is called. To assume that individuals do not care about the nation they are in or associated with or the law of they land you live in is just silly. Not all people think as you do, you know this. There may be some who do not care, but some do. There are many individuals in the Arab world that HATE Jews, that would not all just float away on the wind if only there were no governments. In fact, a lot of the major combatants are not government based at all, and a lot of their goals, stated or otherwise, are not just to get back their house, but to harm others, take vengeance, take property, etc.

            • Jon,

              First, they do not care at all. They’ve lived under Turks, Egyptians, etc. – and the name doesn’t matter. They’ve lived there with the Jews for centuries.

              Second, Arabs, en mass, do NOT hate Jews as they lived there with them for centuries. What is vehemently argued against is modern Zionism as founded by Ashkenazi Jews descended from the medieval Jewish communities along the Rhine in Germany from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north in a response by Ashkenazi Jews to antisemitism and the Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire.

              Why the Palestinians are punished for the rationals of German Jews due to the treatment by Russians is …. bizarre.

              • Yea, you missed my point. My point is that many do not want to live with jews or in a jewish nation. If that were not the case, they would not be joining hamas or bombing places. There have been theological wars for centuries, and regardless of your supposedly superior history sources, I do not buy that it was all the fault of the jews and christians. My point was that this is about individuals, and you cannot just say “leave em alone and it will all be ok” and be right, just because you want it to be that way. For an individualist, you certainly deal in a lot of generalities.

              • Jon,

                *blink*

                They join terrorists groups because their homes are being turned into rubble.

                There have NOT been theological wars “for centuries” – that is a lie and who ever is telling you that is a liar.

                They have lived together for centuries – fought together against Christian invaders – fought together against Mongols – rarely fought each other.

                Review the list above regarding “expulsions” of Jews over the last 2000 years and point to their expulsion from Palestine.

              • Which house? Where are they? Are they vacant? IF not, how long have the new owners been there? This is NOT all about territorial dispute, whoever has been telling you this is lying. Offers have been made to Palestinian families to live where they wish, those who obliged were treated like scabbers by other palestinians. Some wish to live in peace on BOTH SIDES. Many do not wish this on BOTH SIDES. My point is that there is more to this than “let me come home” and that there have been attempts at this that were spurned. Even attempts made by individuals in Israel, reaching out to displaced Palestinians, and getting harmed or killed for their efforts. THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE OR CUT AND DRIED ISSUE, AND IT WILL NOT BE SOLVED EASILY. A basic study of human psychology will tell you that.

                As for the centuries of war, it has not been constant, but there have been wars between the Jews and many other tribes in that region since before the settling of Europe.

              • Jon,

                Google “Rachael Corrie”

                … have been made to Palestinian families to live where they want

                Bullcrap.

                As for the centuries of war, it has not been constant, but there have been wars between the Jews and many other tribes in that region since before the settling of Europe.

                Bullcrap.

                Provide your historical sources of the last 2000 years – I provided my list and it stands, so far, undisputed.

      • Common Man says:

        BF;

        From whom did the Palestine’s originate? Were they not the children of Abraham? How do we know that?

        Do you take anything as factual from the Bible, or other known religous publications?

        And since both Palestinians and Israelites are direct decendents of Abraham aren’t they both entitield to that which was given by God?

        I am struggling with your line of logic that does not allow for any foundational support other than that which you deem valid.

        You cannot validate Palestines place in the world via history and dis-allow others at the same time, it goes against natural law.

        Where are the Israelities to go…back to where their anncestors originated from? How do you propose the UN deal with that chaotic mess when no currrent government wants them?

        You are quick to point fingers for fault, but what are the solutions? How would you propose we deal with the whole Jewish issue?

        CM

        • Common Man,

          From whom did the Palestine’s originate? Were they not the children of Abraham? How do we know that?

          (1)Who cares?
          (2)That is what the Bible says.
          (3)Because we read it in the Bible.

          Do you take anything as factual from the Bible, or other known religous publications?

          Nope.

          And since both Palestinians and Israelites are direct decendents of Abraham aren’t they both entitield to that which was given by God?

          No more and no less than any other human on earth.

          I am struggling with your line of logic that does not allow for any foundational support other than that which you deem valid.

          My foundation is fact and reason, not myth and guess.

          You cannot validate Palestines place in the world via history and dis-allow others at the same time, it goes against natural law.

          They live(d) there.

          Where are the Israelities to go

          To their homes.

          back to where their anncestors originated from?

          Sure, why not?

          How do you propose the UN deal with that chaotic mess when no currrent government wants them?

          Stop Israel war crimes.

          First war crime: forced expulsion of native people.

          Israel’s founding document required the return of ALL refugees – this has not been done. Arguably, Israel is not Rightfully recognized as a nation.

          You are quick to point fingers for fault, but what are the solutions?

          The problem always starts with the guys with the guns.

          Israel has the guns and uses them at will.

          Guess where the solution has to start….

          How would you propose we deal with the whole Jewish issue?

          Let the People go home.

  13. USWep,
    I’m going to peel your bad arguments one by one – each probably deserves a ‘thread on its own’

    Argument One: Ally

    Don’t get yourself too tied up in this definition of “ally” and whether they are or are not an ally. They are an ally in the same way that roughly 90% of the world is our ally.

    Strange, you never say Tibet is an ally, nor Sweden is an ally, nor South Africa is an ally nor Bangladesh is an ally….etc.

    The claim of “ally” -which is central and core to your argument of ‘support’ for Israel- must be tested as a normal understanding of what constitutes an ally.

    Every test of such, Israel fails.

    So I remain “confused” to why you continually claim they are an ally – and not, say, Swaziland (who, by the way, has never bombed US citizens or attacked its naval assets, nor spied on the US, nor sold secrets to adversaries….)

    they are not currently threatening to do harm to American assets or citizens.

    How can you say this!

    Abstract:
    Israel has illegally re-exported advanced US defense technology to China. The problem was first recognized in 1992 when the State Department’s inspector general reported that there was “overwhelming” evidence of a “systematic and growing pattern” of transfers. Israel has been the primary supplier of advanced defense technology to China since 1989.

    Israel’s Unauthorized Retransfer of U.S. Technology Exposed

    Israel Transferring Laser Technology

    Report: U.S. Slams Israel for Selling Arrow Know-how to India

    U.S. Defense Sec’y Rebukes Israelis Bluntly on Sale of Radar Systems to China

    Israel Has Offensive Chemical, Biological Warfare Capabilities, Swedish Report Says

    Haven’t harmed US Citizens??? How can you say that???

    When Israel Attacked the USS Liberty

    The Lavon Affair

    …and of course


    American teenager among those killed in Israeli raid of aid flotilla

    …with 4 head shots….

    • USWeapon says:

      You do not hear me claim those other countries as our allies because they are not in the discussion we are having. I would proclaim all of those countries that you listed as falling into the “90% of the world is our ally” group.

      Further, the claim of whether they are an ally or not is not core to my argument in support of Israel. In fact, it is not relevant to my argument one way or another. It was merely a statement. And one that you are hung up on, and which I don’t really care about. If it makes you feel better I will list Israel as a sworn enemy of the US. That doesn’t change my position on the facts I presented around Israel defending herself. In fact, I clearly stated that I am not an Israel fan. I simply am not blinded by a hatred of Israel or of Palestine.

      I don’t know whether to really conclude that you are blinded by that hatred for Israel or not. But it would appear that way.

      And I would like to see proof of four head shots to an American teenager. Because I have to tell you, that smells like propaganda used to stir the emotion to me. Isn’t it awful convenient that the claim is the lone American killed was the one “executed with four shots to the head”?

      It is also interesting that you, who doesn’t recognize intellectual property rights at all, use them as proof that Israel is not an ally. We sold Israel military technology. Once we did so, they own it and are free to sell it to whomever they choose, at least according to you. After all, there wasn’t a “loss” to the US because Israel shared knowledge with China or anyone else. Which is it, BF? Do intellectual property rights exist or not?

      • USWep,

        You do not hear me claim those other countries as our allies because they are not in the discussion we are having.

        Please don’t be obtuse.

        You know exactly what ally means.

        And you have NEVER suggested this term upon other nations that merely trade with USA.

        Is China an ally?

        Is Russia an ally? (PS: Russians haven’t attack US military ships ….. ever ….amazingly, you believe they are an adversary..!!)

        I simply am not blinded by a hatred of Israel or of Palestine.

        I don’t HATE Israel

        I am not blinded, like you, to some myth of their existence.

        People have a Right to not have their housed destroyed and forced off their land – PERIOD.

        And I would like to see proof of four head shots to an American teenager.

        Your own Washington Post wrote about it.

        Just Google it – this is not a “secret”, for heavens sake!!

        Isn’t it awful convenient that the claim is the lone American killed was the one “executed with four shots to the head”?

        No, many revelations to the other deaths -such as head shots to the back of the head of one Turkish national – abound throughout the reports.

        The point was you said “No American harmed” – and right in your face, there is an example.

        We sold Israel military technology.

        So, all you can do is be obtuse in your arguments.

        I provide stunning examples of outright hostile behavior of Israel, and this is the best you can do?

        • USWeapon says:

          Yes, China is an ally. Russia too. Our leaders visit with their leaders. I am not being obtuse. I simply don’t care what your definition of ally is, because it is a term that means little to me. Allies stab you in the back while enemies stab you in the chest. My loyalty lies with the US, no one else. Ally or not.

          People have a Right to not have their housed destroyed and forced off their land – PERIOD.

          I agree. You simply don’t believe that Israeli people also have that right.

          Your own Washington Post wrote about it.

          Just Google it – this is not a “secret”, for heavens sake!!

          I have googled it. I see no proof. I see it claimed. I see every news organization in the world in a feeding frenzy on Israel. The Washington Post is not “mine”. I trust them no more than anyone else. They get their news the same way as everyone else. They report what other papers are reporting. I would still like to see any proof that a man was shot four times in the head, execution style, as you claim. Pictures? Video? Autopsy report? Anything besides what the people who were attempting to push Israel’s buttons are saying?

          The point was you said “No American harmed” – and right in your face, there is an example.

          Again if it makes you feel better, then an American was harmed and Israel is the devil. Doesn’t change my opinion of the other facts surrounding this incident.

          So, all you can do is be obtuse in your arguments.

          I provide stunning examples of outright hostile behavior of Israel, and this is the best you can do?

          I am not being obtuse. I am merely pointing out the contradiction in your position. You clearly say intellectual property rights don’t exist, and then use them as proof that Israel is hostile. As I have said four times now, if it makes you feel better, then we can call Israel an enemy and proclaim them the devil. I don’t care, because I don’t really care about Israel. What I do care about is the truth. Not propaganda.

          • USWep,

            *blink*

            Washington Post:

            One of the nine activists killed by Israeli commandos aboard a Gaza-bound aid flotilla was a teenager who held U.S. citizenship, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday.

            You’ve crossed the line into idiocy, USWep, in your cartwheels to support your ill-produced argument.

            • ABC News:

              A U.S. citizen who lived in Turkey is among the nine people killed when Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish aid ship heading for the Gaza Strip, officials said today. The victim was identified as Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish-American. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency.

              • BF

                I am curious as to why you have not mentioned that this young man was ALSO a citizen of Turkey.

                The guy hadn’t lived in the USA since he was 2 years old. So how would the Israeli’s have any way of knowing he was a US citizen?

              • JAC,

                Whether they knew or not is irrelevant.

                There were many of different nationalities, and it didn’t matter.

                It is irrelevant whether or not he was also a Turkish citizen.

                The fact: he was an American citizen on an unarmed ship, murdered by soldiers of a country in international waters.

                As many pundits have said: “What would the USA have done if it was Iranians who shot the boy?”

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                not much, maybe a strongly worded statement?

              • From Salon:

                One of the more disturbing — though predictable — developments this week is the effort to suggest that Furkan Dogan, the 19-year-old American killed by the Israelis with four bullets to the head and one to the chest, is not a “real citizen.” That, of course, tracks the prior Joe-Lieberman-led proposal to strip Americans of their citizenship (now being replicated in Israel) and the Obama administration’s targeting of Americans for due-process-free assassinations. We now have at least two classes of citizenship: “real citizens” and “not really citizens.”

            • USWeapon says:

              Did Secretary Clinton (a proven liar whenever it suits her purpose for the record) say that she saw a teenage American body with four shots to the head execution style? I don’t recall denying that an American was killed. I recall saying he was shot four times in the head execution style seems fishy to me. Your attempts to render my opinion moot by intentionally misdirecting are failing miserably.

              I expected a better thought out discussion.

              • USWep,

                Put it this way…

                …you’re the only one I know of who even questions the report.

              • I will not question the report at all…..so, he was shot four times in the head. He should have ducked better or not been there and part of that. As I said below…if you swim with sharks…expect to be lunch.

                I can justify that fact as to why he was shot four times or even more. It was not execution style….or beheading.

                Those that have been in close combat know….we do not count our shots. We shot as many times we can and we take head shots if applicable….the old “center mass” is no longer relevant given body armor. Shoot where it is not…and shoot often. The number of times is not relevant.

                I once told my son when he chained himself to a tree….expect to be run over by bull dozers, son….your choice.

              • Yes Sir!

                Need I say more?

                G!

              • Cyndi P says:

                Excellent point, D13. Did the young American citizen of legal age think he was going on a Carnival cruise? Was he kidnap by Israel’s and then executed? So far as I can tell he knowingly placed himself in harm’s way.

                Life is tough, its tougher when you’re stupid, and sometimes shorter as well.

              • You are the only one who seems to care that a person who also had American citizenship was involved. Bringing this up is only intended to incite an emotional response. You seem to care nothing for citizenship anyway, why is it even part of your argument in this situation?

              • Jon

                seems to care that a person who also had American citizenship was involved

                Yes, isn’t that amazing?

                No one else cares.

                But D13 made a HUGE deal when a MILITARY man was killed by Iran.

                But not a peep when a civilian citizen by Israel?

                Indeed – very amazing….

              • Amazing that it is an issue for you. NOT amazing that it is not an issue for the rest of us. Big deal when a known US citizen is killed, military or not, but especially civilian. When that citizen is only such because of birth, and no evidence of their appearance, actions, etc. show any sign of such citizenship? No, not really. No more than would be made of a US spy that was undercover. They would be appearing non-US, thus no fault on those who failed to recognize that fact. The guy looked like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck. The fact that he was both a duck and an american seems to only be a big deal for those who are using that point to press some agenda. Either you are trying to elicit an emotional response to manipulate the conversation, or you have no idea of the logic of your opponents and you think they are simply uninformed. You do not, in either case, recognize the reasoning of those you are railing against in this case.

          • USWep

            am not being obtuse. I am merely pointing out the contradiction in your position.

            *blink*

            You presented a series of arguments resting on a number of points.

            Each and every point you held has been refuted.

            And you think I contradicted myself.

            *sigh*

  14. Common Man says:

    I guess this clip says a number of things. We keep our own house in order, mind our own business and maintain a bubble around that which we deem ‘ours’ and we won’t have to deel with any progressing evil…or will we?

    CM

  15. USwep,

    Argument Two: Right of Conquest

    We cannot attempt to go back through history and alter every line on every map based on a belief that conquest of land is not legitimate.

    I didn’t.

    I specifically stated that Right of Conquest was abolished in 1945.

    Therefore, whether you believed it was a Right before, or notit is NOT a Right now.

    To uphold the Right of Conquest in this matter is to uphold a war crime

    • USWeapon says:

      So then you recognize the legitimacy of the United Nations to set a date on the calendar and say from this point forward, you can’t do “X”. You recognize the UN’s ability to declare this to be a war crime.

      It is good to see that you are finally beginning to recognize the legitimacy of some form of governmental structure. It is sad to see that you only do so when it suits your purpose.

      • USWep,

        So you concede that my argument is correct – that the claim to Right of Conquest is a war crime as of 1945.

        • I don’t. The UN does not determine rights. I understand that it was called the “Right of Conquest”, but that does not make it a right, nor does their arbitrary removal of it make it not a right.

          The UN may not have had the right to grant land to a nation. It then, also, does not have the right to remove it.

          In your list of who “owned” that land, however, I do not see “Palestine” in the list. Also, are the homes the Palestinians are supposed to return to just sitting vacant now? If not, and they belong to other individuals now, then where should they go?

        • USWeapon says:

          No I don’t concede that it is a war crime as of 1945. Because I care not what the United Nations has to say about anything. I do care if it is a war crime, but your arbitrary date, which conveniently punishes Israel, means nothing.

          But you are not going to get off that easy, by simply trying to turn the question back at me. Answer the question Flag. Since when do you recognize a government organization setting some law as a war crime effective on a certain date? The UN is wholely illegitimate to you in one argument, and then when it suits you, their ruling is law.

          • USWep,

            Your position is irrational.

            You claim you care if it is a war crime.

            However, you dismiss any and all precedent and International Law, and agreements so signed by all the parties as tools to determine said war crime.

            Bizarre, sir.

  16. USWep

    Argument Three: International Law

    It is interesting that you pick and choose where you think the UN and other world bodies are legitimate.

    You raised “International Law” argument.

    Based on your raised argument I pointed to the specific articles and tenants of International Law that both the US and Israel (and a few hundred other countries) have agreed to

    So, either you change your argument to – “International Law doesn’t matter”

    or

    Subject your argument to the terms of International Law as agreed by these Nations.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      However, USW makes a PERFECTLY VALID POINT, which is that there were other nations which ATTACKED ISRAEL in violation of “international law” several times in the past 63 years.

      So, it most certainly is not “just Israel” violating these precious concepts of “International Law”.

      I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that the core of the problem is that Israel was created and placed where it is by international fiat.

      If the Old Testament is indeed accurate, there may be valid reasons for locating it where it is, but nonetheless, creating it there by international fiat probably wasn’t the best of ideas.

      • Peter,

        there were other nations which ATTACKED ISRAEL violation of “international law”

        Who and When and what violation of International Law?

        • USWeapon says:

          How about the day after Israel was “created”. Syria, TansJordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. Violation of the very law that you say binds Israel, but not her neighbors.

          • USWep,

            Get your time lines straight

            On January 29, 1949, the former Mandatory Power, Britain, recognized the state of Israel.

            In the fall of 1948, Israel had applied for membership in the United Nations but failed to win the necessary majority in the Security Council.

            In February 1949, Israel renewed its application for membership in the United Nations. On March 4, 1949, the Security Council recommended to the General Assembly that it be admitted.

            On May 11, Israel was admitted, and the UN recognition of Israel is made.

            The order of conflict – please note that the Haganah began the offensive and mobilization months before any coordinated effort by any Arab nation against Palestine


            January 14: Haganah concludes $12,280,000 arms deal with Czechoslovakia, including 24,500 rifles, 5,200 machine guns and 54 million rounds of ammunition.

            January 16: British report to UN estimates 1,974 people killed or injured in Palestine from 30 November 1947 – 10 January 1948.

            January 20: British administration announces that predominantly Jewish or Palestinian areas will be gradually handed over to local majority group in every area concerned.

            January 21 & 28: Second and third contingents of 360 and 400 ALA irregulars arrive in Palestine. January –

            March: JNF leaders encourage eviction from villages of Haifa area.

            February: Haganah office set up in US under name “Land and Labor” for recruitment of professional military personnel (MAHAL).

            February 14: Ben-Gurion issues orders to Haganah commander in Jerusalem for conquest of whole city and its suburbs.

            February 27: Jewish Agency announces it will establish state even without backing of an international force.

            March 5 – 7: Qawuqji enters Palestine and assumes command of ALA units in central Palestine.

            March 6: Haganah declares general mobilization.

            March 19: Ben-Gurion declares Jewish state dependent not on UN partition decision but on Jewish military preponderance.

            March 25: President Truman secretly receives Chaim Weizmann at White House and pledges support for declaration of Jewish state on May 15th.

            March 30 – May 15: Second coastal “clearing” operation carried out by Haganah Alexandroni brigade and other units.

            Attacks and expulsions drive out almost all Palestinian communities from coastal area from Haifa to Jaffa prior to British withdrawal.

            April 8: Haganah starts offensive against Palestinian town of Tiberias.

            April 22: Haganah launches Operation Misparayim to attack and occupy Haifa.

            May 1: Lebanon and Syria decide to send troops to Palestine at end of Mandate on May 15th.

            May 2: Iraq dispatches troops to town of Mafraq, in Transjordan, en route to Palestine after May 15th. Three planeloads of arms for Haganah arrive from France.

            May 3: Between 175,000 and 200,000 Palestinian refugees are reported to have fled from areas taken.

            May 10: Haganah enters Jaffa.

            May 11 – 12: Haganah captures Safed and surrounding villages.

            May 12: State of emergency declared in all Arab countries and able-bodied Palestinian men barred entry to them.

            Egyptian parliament decides to send troops to Palestine at end of Mandate.

            May 14: State of Israel proclaimed in Tel Aviv at 4pm.
            Haganah launches Operation Schfifon for capture of Old City of Jerusalem.

            May 15: British Mandate ends.
            Declaration of State of Israel comes into effect.

            First Egyptian troops cross border into Palestine and attack colonies of Kfar Darom and Nirim in Negev.

            Three Transjordanian Arab Legion brigades cross Jordan River into Palestine.

            • So, you are basing aggression on your perception of organized mobilization? Why is your intelligence of this so stellar compared to, I dunno, the Israeli military? There was aggression on both sides regardless, and there was violation of international law. Why are you so inconsistent with foreign criticism? You seem to have great consistency with philosophy until it steps outside of US borders, and then your attitude changes completely. You have a general attitude of backing islam against the Jews and/or christians, and you seem to have a general attitude of backing the enemies of the US. Perhaps this is just rooting for the underdog? I don’t know, but you play a lot of games justifying actions of foreign powers that sound nothing like the “all government is bad” attitude you have towards all things American. What gives?

              • Jon,

                I base my perception on historical FACT, not some propaganda piece.

                What violation of international law do you refer to?

                I am NOT inconsistent with my criticism. However, I hold -so far- a comprehensive theory of geopolitics regarding hegemonic power.

                Simply put, the hegemonic power MUST unilaterally stop its attacks before “peace” can be achieved.

                If it demands the weak power to halt first, this is called “surrender”. This demand works if the weak power can surrender.

                In circumstances where surrender is impossible, the hegemonic demand of surrender is moot – it will never happen.

                Therefore, all initial cessation of violence MUST come from the hegemonic power.

                There is a couple of chapters on why Palestinians will never surrender -like the Vietnamese- so just take my word for it – they will NEVER surrender, and the longer the protraction of their struggle, the worse the end will be for Israel.

            • USWeapon says:

              How convenient that you simply don’t mention that this started well before that BF. You conveniently start the timeline in 1949.
              Let’s start that timeline in 1947, when the UN actually created Israel (hint: pay attention when I say that they attacked the day after Israel was created that means the day after Israel was created, not 2 years later).

              November 29, 1947: United Nations votes for the partition of the remainder of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem a neutral international city. The United States embargoes arms sales to the Jews while the British sell arms freely to the Arabs; with support from Stalin, the Jews are ultimately able to purchase $12 million of rifles from Czechoslovakia.

              May 14, 1948: State of Israel declared. British withdraw. New state attacked simultaneously by Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt. Palestinian Arabs were encouraged by the invading armies to vacate their homes to facilitate a quick war and complete victory.

              July 1949: The fighting is over but the Israelis refuse to let the Palestinian Arabs who fled to return to their homes. Meanwhile, Jews living in Arab countries jump or are pushed into emigrating to Israel. There are more than 500,000 refugees on each side of the conflict. The Arabs leave the Palestinians in makeshift tent camps. The Israelis begin to build cheap ugly concrete apartment blocks for all the Jews from Arab countries.

              Anyone can copy and paste a timeline. The difference here is that I am looking at reality while you are allowing blind dislike for Israel to mar your argument. And everyone seems to see it but you.

              • USWep,

                *blink*

                The UN did NOT create Israel in 1947.

                Right in front of your face is the date and time – and it blasts right through you….

                The vote for partitioning did not create the “Jewish” State called Israel. The word “Israel” is not written anywhere in the resolution – nada.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_division

                The State was called Palestine – and it was being split into two sub-divisions.

                Don’t be preaching to me about timelines and history unless you KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

              • Jewish Expulsions:

                Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries

                by Ya’akov Meron

                “Palestinians are the only Arabs vocally to denounce the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries.”

                As Dr. Meron points out, the exact cause of the Jewish Expulsions/Migrations are difficult to ascertain.

                A good many cases were Jews leaving for Israel; a good many cases were Jews expelled because of Israel; a good many cases where Jews expelled because of war; a good many cases were Jews expelled because of Israeli action on Palestinians.

                He is correct when he says the situation is not simple.

                However, in his conclusion, he creates a serious moral error – one that dominates the situation in the Middle East, and one that his conclusion will only continue to inflame and not resolve.

                To punish the Palestinians for the actions of others – no matter who they are – is a great and terrible evil.

  17. USWep,

    Argument Four: Moral Equivalency of Weapons

    If their primary weapons were rocks, I don’t believe Israel would roll into Gaza with tanks to stop rocks from being thrown across their border. They would simply not locate anything within a stone’s throw of the border. It almost angers me that someone as smart as you intentionally misrepresents the situation in this way.

    Please show the numbers of tanks, bombers, heavy artillery, nuclear weapons and troops arrayed against Israel by the people in Gaza.

    • USWeapon says:

      Please show the number of times in the last 50 years that Israel has used those tanks, bombers, heavy artillery, nuclear weapons and troops WITHOUT provocation.

      Again, I put forth a simple concept, which you still refuse to acknowledge. If you don’t want “tanks, bombers, heavy artillery, nuclear weapons and troops” kicking your ass, don’t pick a fight with people who have “tanks, bombers, heavy artillery, nuclear weapons and troops”. If you walk into a bar and punch a man with a gun on his hip, don’t be surprised if you end up aerated.

      • Bottom Line says:

        USW – “…aerated.”

        LOL!

      • USWep,

        You fall back into the irrational stance that protecting your stolen land requires the owner to stop fighting for it, and surrender to the thief.

        • I have seen no evidence that the so-called owners have more right to the land than Israel, last check on your timeline was Russia…

          • Jon,

            So the fact their houses are being demolished holds no weight for you.

            Be fearful, sir, for the same will be done to you one day, and your cries will be ignored.

            • Just asking for specifics to the claim to the land. If we are talking about displacement caused by the UN action that established the Israeli nation, then fine, but I want to know specifically the regions you are talking about. Where are the houses and land, whose were they, and when were they taken. We cannot be talking about the entire area, because there are a lot of buildings in Israel, most of which have not been destroyed. TO WHAT AREA ARE YOU REFERRING? The stated goals have been to completely remove Israel from the region, to destroy it completely. I want to know if you agree with that goal. I want to know who owns the land now since there is a LOT of Israeli buildings and infrastructure since the 60’s, and I want to know where THOSE people are supposed to go.

              I would also like to know if you thought it was a good move for Europe to give land back to Germany before WWII. Was that a legitimate action by Germany?

            • USWeapon says:

              And the fact that they are only being demolished after they launch rockets across the border demolishing Israelis houses seems to matter not one wit to you. Odd.

        • USWeapon says:

          Again you attempt to deflect the relative weakness of your argument by attempting to change the direction of the conversation.

          The point you were attempting to make was that the defenseless Arabs are outgunned by the Israelis. I countered by saying that the Israelis don’t use that advantage unless attacked. You, instead of answering that charge, then go on a different tangent about surrendering to a thief.

          When you pick a fight, you cannot blame the person you pick the fight with if they have the tools to whip your ass. I have 20 years of martial arts training. Add to that what the military taught me. I NEVER start a fight, ever. But believe me, if someone were to start one with me, it is their mistake. I will use my full arsenal. And I don’t expect them to whine that it wasn’t fair because they didn’t have my training. They shouldn’t have picked the fight.

          • USWEp,

            Err, they are defenseless Arabs who are outgunned by Israel!

            What kind of bizarre argument are you presenting? If the opposite was true, we -truly- would be having no debate as there would be no “Palestinian” issue!!

            So to claim some bizarre alternative reality as a point to rest your argument on makes you live in a bizarre alternative reality! Heck, that also makes you a normal American!!

            Israel has used that advantage daily. Their seizure of the West Bank in 67 proves it. Their unimpeded assault into Gaza proves it.

            How you, merely a man, acts is NOT how a nation acts. A closer analogy would be if I “owned” your brain, and whenever I needed “muscle” I filled you with some bizarre Patriotic notion and sent you to do my dirty work.

            Government officials do not do the fighting. Stupid young men do the fighting.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      Any weapon is a weapon, and as such can be used to kill others. I know that YOU feel that rocks and stones are morally superior to tanks and heavy artillery, but nonetheless, I believe that those rockets fired from Gaza into Israel do actually kill people from time to time.

      Please note, I AM NOT POINTING THAT OUT TO MAKE ISRAEL SEEM LIKE “THE GOOD GUY”, which they clearly are not.

      The whole Israel situation is far more complex than you attempt to make it out.

      Your view is “Israel has no right to be there, so anything Israel does is bad”. Fine, we get that. However, not everyone agrees with that position. If everyone agreed with that position, then there would probably be no particular problem there.

      The thing that we actually have to deal with is that whether you personally think Israel has a right to be there or not, they are, in fact, there. Not only are they there, but “international law” recognizes them as a soverign nation.

      Have they violated “international law” and violated UN edicts and directives? Of course. So has virtually every other country on the face of the planet, including every single one which surrounds Israel. So if we are going to criticize Israel for such “violations”, we should probably be consistent and criticize every single other nation who has violated “international law” and various edicts of the UN, no?

      The other BIG PROBLEM I have with 100% of your posts on ANY ISSUE dealing with Israel, you are extremely quick to criticize ANY action of Israel, and extremely quick to excuse or justify any action by anyone in that region who is not Israel, but that is where your posts generally stop.

      That simply isn’t productive. This site is supposedly here to identify problems and try to come up with solutions – hopefully solutions that are good ones AND are at least somewhat realistic.

      Of course, you are not alone in that particular fault, this issue is so polarizing that it is very difficult to get past the blame-game phase. However, of all people on this site I thought at least you would have transcended that phase by now and moved on to, “Ok, here’s the reality we have right now, how do we best deal with it?”

      So, let me get us started in that direction:

      1. Like it or not, Israel exists where it exists, and the vast majority of other nations accept it as a real, sovereign nation.

      2. Israel has expanded its borders in ways which violate international law and continues to occupy land outside of its original borders.

      3. Other countries attacked Israel even before Israel expanded beyond its original borders.

      4. Israel has attacked other countries, many times without actual provocation.

      5. The fact that Israel was established in it’s current location by “magic” in 1947 is unlikely to be reversed, other than by someone “wiping Israel off of the map”.

      I could list more, but that is a start… so, given those facts (you can argue if they are all factual or not if you like, but I am pretty sure they are indeed factual)… where do we go from here?

      • Peter,

        whole Israel situation is far more complex than you attempt to make

        No Sir!!

        It is NOT complicated.

        People have a right to live in their houses.

        • Fine, but I am still trying to figure out if its really their house. Hell, based on some aspects of this conversation, I am looking for some consistent philosophy on property ownership in general, and the most I have heard from you is that it has to be based on peaceful transaction if its after WWII because of what some illegitimate organization of nations that is bent on world government and the destruction of capitalism said. WTF?

  18. USWep,

    Argument Five: Israeli assault on Lebanese people

    Israel recently attacked Lebanon and its citizens without cause.

    You sure have a selective memory. From Wiki: The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.

    This is a lie.

    Even Israel admits that this patrol was in Lebanese territory.

    The ambush left five soldiers dead or mortally wounded and two of the soldiers were taken to Lebanon (later known to be dead). Five more were killed in a failed Israeli rescue attempt. Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon.

    Sorry, I missed where you justified the slaughter of the people in Beirut.

    • USWeapon says:

      I see, if it contradicts your position, it is simply a lie.

      And I missed where you justified the slaughter of people in Israel.

      • USWep,

        So, you concede you have no argument to Israel’s bombing of Beirut and the killing of Lebanese citizens.

        • USWeapon says:

          If you concede that you have no argument to Hezbollah’s and Hamas’s bombing of Israeli cities and killing of Israeli citizens.

          • USWep,

            First Hezbollah primary purpose is anti-Syria.

            Second Hamas was created by the United States as a counter weight to PLO.

            I need not concede a thing – since these players entire existence STEMS FROM USA interventions and support on behalf of Israel.

            As I often point out – the hegemonic power must recede FIRST

      • USWep,

        And I missed where you justified the slaughter of people in Israel.

        I gave none but unlike you I never offered any either.

        • USWeapon says:

          I did not offer any such justification. There is a big difference between having an honest discussion around the circumstances and saying that the murder of innocents is “justified”. I have justified Israelis killing Palestinian civilians no more OR LESS than you in the reverse. In fact you come closer to justifying by claiming that their inferior weaponry leaves them no choice but to OFFENSIVELY launch rockets randomly across the border.

  19. USWep,

    Argument Six: Biased understanding

    Washington Pst or not. The point is that here is a guy who’s specialty is international law, who teaches it at one of the best law schools in the country. And his opinion differs from your opinion. There are lots of people on both sides of this issue. The point was it is not as cut and dry as you attempt to present it to be.

    Instead of parroting the ignorance of your sources, please provide the text that pertains to such an argument.

    If you actually read the documents you would see that the argument you raise is wholly unsupported.

    …and it is that cut and dry

    • USWeapon says:

      I am not an international law specialist. That guy was. He cited where it said so. I am not going to read the entire book of international law in order to refute a guy quoting from it. If you believe he is wrong, you are welcome to refute what HE quotes from international law.

      Again, there are tons of people on both sides of this issue, each believing their interpretation is correct. I will once again point out that the point is that it is not cut and dry. That doesn’t change simply because you choose to say it is cut and dry over and over and over.

      • USWep,

        I am not an international law specialist. That guy was. He cited where it said so.

        You are so illiterate that you abdicate your own understanding of English and accept some yahoo’s version.

        Hmm……

        I am not going to read the entire book of international law in order to refute a guy quoting from it.

        I quoted the specific PARAGRAPH to reference.

        Hardly a “book”.

        If you believe he is wrong, you are welcome to refute what HE quotes from international law.

        Already did.

        Too bad your effort is so pitiful that you can’t do the same.

        Again, there are tons of people on both sides of this issue, each believing their interpretation is correct. I will once again point out that the point is that it is not cut and dry. That doesn’t change simply because you choose to say it is cut and dry over and over and over.

        • USWep,

          Whoops, too quick on the “click”

          Again, there are tons of people on both sides of this issue,

          Actually, this is not true.

          No one but USA and Israel are arguing about it

          Every one else is perfectly clear on its illegality

          • USWeapon says:

            Have to step out for a bit. But wanted to answer this first.

            It is not true that no one but the US and Israel are arguing about it. Look into the press in most of the European countries. There are debates raging amongst legal scholars. In almost every country where a truly free press exists, it is easy to find.

            And I didn’t depend on “some yahoo” to interpret the law. I simply provided an opinion that was from a man who’s SPECIALTY is the very law you are talking about. That you deem you interpretation to be iron clad and an expert in international law’s opinion to be completely faulty is a position you are welcome to take. But that does not make you right. It is simply an area where we are unlikely to agree. I will read what I can of the law later. But for now, I defer to the expert who teaches at Stanford Law School.

            • USWep,

              Please provide any support to your claim of:

              Look into the press in most of the European countries

              What I have found is that they are American diplomats in these foreign countries making the claim – but not one from the country itself

              …but if you can find an example of a country other than US and Israel, please post it – I’d like to read their arguments.

            • USWep
              you deem you interpretation to be iron clad and an expert in international law’s opinion to be completely faulty is a position you are welcome to take. But that does not make you right

              It means I can read and understand English fairly well.

        • Murphy's Law says:

          BF says to USW- “You are so illiterate that you abdicate your own understanding of English”….and “…your effort is so pitiful…”

          You are actually calling the author of this blog illiterate and pitiful……I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly infer, much less come right out and say, that USW is either of those things.

          I will say this- your words are despicable, and you have no class whatsoever.

          I am amazed that USW continues to have the grace to allow you to post here, but I’m sure he does it to show what is out there. Another apology is owed by you, this time of course to USW.

          Murf

          • Murphy,

            You should find context.

            USWep’s argument was “I can’t be bothered reading the document for myself because it being only a paragraph is too long for me, and I’d rather let some unknown, biased person do my thinking for me”.

            PS: I think USWep is lucky to have me post! 🙂

            • And I would say that I don’t give a rat’s patootey about your paragraph, because no law in current existence is based on a paragraph or can be explained fully by one, there is always further reference, precedent, basis, amendment, definition, etc. That is how the legal code is. So, yea, I might be more apt to take an expert’s opinion over someone who hands me a paragraph and says he knows more about international law.

            • USWeapon says:

              No. I think Jon Smith did a far better job of explaining my position.

              • Jon and USWep,

                Willful ignorance is no excuse.

                Because you do not understand (willfully or not) then you cannot use it to support your argument since you do not understand what it says.

              • True, perhaps, but I do not mind using the research of another that I trust. I often trust your facts on some things. There is not enough time to know all and research all.

                At this point I am more concerned with the validity of international law than what it says or means anyway. I do not care about illegitimate law any more than I do about the complexities and inner workings of scientology unless I can be shown the legitimacy of either one, or find myself having to deal with either one.

              • Jon,

                International Law is law between sovereign States,
                which by definition, Sovereign means “not bound by someone else’s law”

                International law exists to establish norms of behavior between States – because the only enforcement otherwise is war.

                When a nation decides to place itself above its agreements (though unenforceable in any practical way except by war) – it is a serious and systemic threat to all nations on earth.

                The establishment of such bodies like the UN – or the League of Nations – was conceived as a place where Nations could muster the common will of all nations while understanding that the only means to enforce such will will be by war.

                The UN, thus, was to be a tool to avoid such war.

                No nation is forced to join the UN.

                Joining the UN does mean you agree to its articles.

                Such an article I have posted.

                Israel and the USA are such signatories.

                True, they can ignore their agreement.

                But the consequence will not be in the best interest of either over the long run as both depend on international cooperation for their survival.

          • Murph, It’s a guy thing. They love each other 🙂

            USWeapon Says:

            January 19, 2010 at 12:27 am | Reply
            I like the new flag! I must say, my friend, I have come far in gaining a better understanding of where you are on topics I post. We may not always agree, but I think that we have come to a point where we share a similar vision and are now fighting the same fight, albeit with different tactics.

            Black Flag Says:

            January 19, 2010 at 5:22 pm | Reply
            Yes, my friend.

            You Captain a different ship.

            But we share the same wind

            • Murphy's Law says:

              I don’t doubt that they consider each other friends. All the more reason to offer an apology.

              Don’t you apologize to your friends if, in the heat of argument, you insult one of them?

              There has been discussion on this blog over the definition of the word “civilized”. BF has taken part in such discussions. But he is not civilized enough to apologize to a man he calls his friend after clearly insulting him. Just calling him out on it.

              But not at all surprised that he did not do it.

              Murf

    • Mathius says:

      Flag, not to put too fine a point on it, but you are a somewhat hostile here. It has been my experience that USW “parrots” very little. He is one of the few people I have known who legitimately seems to come up with his opinions after becoming informed. It is not “parroting” to base your opinion on the informed opinions of experts. There is simply not enough time in the day to become an expert in every subject we wish to discuss – all we can do it aim to be reasonably well informed.

      I do not know first hand that the Earth revolves around the Sun – I know theoretically how to prove it, but I have never done so myself. I rely on the consensus of experts. This does not make me a parrot either if I tell you that I believe it to be the case.

      • Mathius,

        In this matter he merely parroted.

        The relevant text is in English. From past experience, I know he can read English.

        Further, from that same experience, I know he can comprehend most of what he reads.

        As I’ve already provided the quote and the links, he also knows it isn’t a book.

        To subsequently claim “I’m no international lawyer and I can’t be bothered to look it up” while using this claim as part of his argument is obtuse.

        • Mathius says:

          The last time I heard someone call someone obtuse, he got a month in the hole…

          • Bottom Line says:

            Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?
            Warden Samuel Norton: What? What did you call me?
            Andy Dufresne: Obtuse. Is it deliberate?
            Warden Samuel Norton: Son, you’re forgetting yourself.

            • Yep, and in the end, this little episode eventually led Warden Norton putting a bullet through his own head…

              …that’ll teach him for being obtuse!

              • Mathius says:

                See, the problem was that he meant to aim his gun at the door (90 degree angle to the floor), but accidentally used an angle great than 90 degrees.

            • Mathius says:

              And 10 points to BL…

              One of the greatest movies of all time. Period.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Then why did the Commandos not fire on the other ships? Were these more evil commandos?

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Hmm, I am starting to see a pattern here. Are you secretly Tony DiNozzo of NCIS?
            The obscure references to movies give you away.

  20. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Mathias says in response to post # 9 by BF >

    “That said, how does anyone own anything? How do you own your land when it was stolen from Native American Indians?”

    I say >

    I know you are just trying to make some points, but many Indian Deeds exist. I include a link (which may not work) to a deed for Springfield (Agawam at the time), Massachusetts signed by the Indians.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=vMLAcJjc4p8C&pg=PA13&dq=%22Indian+deed%22+%2B+%22Springfield%22&ei=WU8NTM3EG6XKzATt2NG5BQ&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Indian%20deed%22%20%2B%20%22Springfield%22&f=false

  21. How Israeli propaganda shaped U.S. media coverage of the flotilla attack

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/04/israel/index.html

    • As Juan Cole says: “Many passengers have now confirmed that they were fired on even before the commandos had boots on the deck. Presumably it is this suppressive fire that killed or wounded some passengers and which provoked an angry reaction and an attack on the commandos.”

  22. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    Matt, Manhattan was purchased from the wrong tribe. I forget the exact details but Peter Minuet apparently was dealing with a tribe other than the Manhattan Indians. They apparently convinced him they had clear title. They then skipped town with the $ 24.00 worth of trinkets. This is the first swindle recorded on the island of Manhattan, but not the last. I grew up not far from the supposed spot the deal was consummated (Inwood Hill Park)this was common knowledge among the park rangers. Later it appeared in an number of books I read.

    The real owners of Israel are the Canaanites, period. When they show up, they should get it back.

    Seriously folks, this whole thing is another part of the unmitigated disaster of WW I. After the Ottoman empire fell, the French and Brits carved it all up. The boundary lines make about as much sense as Kansas.

    Maybe when we test everybody’s DNA, we can figure out who the “real” owners are of everything. Remember though, there was something called the diaspora around 70AD when the Romans leveled the place. When Islam went Rampant, they conquered it. That in turn begat the Crusades. There is an interesting quick website that explains how the place has not been a country since the Romans invaded

    http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

    I take issue with saying the “Right of Conquest” ended in ’45. There is something called East Prussia which went to Poland and a few northern Japanese islands which went to Russia. Africa remains a mess.

    • Mathius says:

      So there ya go.

      We bought something from someone who didn’t own it. And now we claim it as ours.

      So no one who lives in NY actually, legitimately owns the land they think they do. How could they?

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Exactly!

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        That may explain why New Yorkers are such bleeding heart liberals, they feel guilty over living on land they don’t own. While the more conservative Puritan types of western Massachusetts live without conflict because they made sure who they were dealing with and have the deeds to back it up to this day. ( grin )

  23. Egypt: Gaza blockade a failure, border stays open

    ..the game gets interesting.

    Will Israel extend its piracy and raid ships headed for Egypt?

  24. An Economist’s view:

    Ten Bloodless Steps the Israelis Could Have Taken to Sink the Flotilla’s PR Strategy.

    The State of Israel has suffered its worst setback in public relations in my lifetime. I can recall nothing even remotely close. The PR disaster has barely begun to unfold.

    The person who planned the Turkish resistance took a page out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (1972).

    The overarching principle of Alinsky’s system is this: the action is the reaction.

    The goal is to provoke a response that embarrasses the target.

    Alinsky recommended nonviolence.

    His model was Gandhi.

    But violence can be effective, too. Mild violence is implemented in order to gain a more powerful response, one that seems to be overkill.

    The six ships that sailed for Gaza were tests. They were opportunities for a confrontation.

    That is a basic plan of action for Alinsky.

    (1)If there is no resistance, this displays weakness. It undermines the will to resist.

    (2)If there is resistance, the plan works if this resistance is seen by the public as excessive.

    The sixth ship had the core of the resistance movement. It was a suicide mission. The goal was to provoke a deadly response.

    They were armed with non-weapons that could become weapons. They were weapons in the eyes of the boarding party. The boarding party responded exactly as the planner expected. These activists were martyrs for a cause. They knew exactly what they were doing: provoking a deadly response.

    Netanyahu grew up in the United States. He should have recognized an Alinsky set-up before the ships approached the boarding spot. He didn’t.

    What should he have ordered the military commander to do? The following.

    1. Send in the equivalent of Navy Seals to disable the ship’s propeller or steering mechanism.

    At that point, he could have taken these steps.

    2. Issued a call to Turkish authorities to come and remove the people from the drifting ship.

    3. Waited days or weeks for the rescuers to arrive.

    4. Told the rescuers to deal with the suicide squad.

    That would have bought Netanyahu time.

    Delay was of the essence of a successful defensive plan.

    Why? Because of media boredom.

    They cannot maintain interest of their audience if nothing is happening.
    Make sure nothing interesting happens.

    Next:

    5. Bring the other ships into an Israeli port. (He did this.)

    6. Search them in the presence of Amnesty International observers.

    7. Transport humanitarian supplies to Gaza’s border. (He did this.)

    8. When the attackers are no longer on board the disabled ship, order the troops to conduct a search for Hamas-directed weapons in the presence of Amnesty International observers.

    9. Haul the ship into port, unload it in full public view, and send any humanitarian supplies across the border.

    10. Put all weapons on display on YouTube.

    This is Alinsky Tactics 101.

    The way to defeat Alinsky is to copy Alinsky.

    Netanyahu should have read Rules for Radicals long ago.

    The New York Times journalists completely misunderstood what happened. They wrote:

    In truth, the chaos and deaths on the ship, known as the Mavi Marmara, the largest of a six-boat fleet, were not a result of lack of planning. It was clear for at least a month to both the Israeli government and the pro-Palestinian activists behind the flotilla that they were on a collision course. But both severely miscalculated.

    Nonsense.

    The suicide squad and the planners calculated perfectly. The Israelis did not.

    Israel, increasingly on the defensive over its policy toward the Palestinians, understood that it faced a public relations battle it could not win: its military could easily stop the boats, but if civilians were harmed, it would be blamed.

    The Israelis believed that letting the flotilla through would open a new military corridor to Gaza, run by Hamas, that would include weapons and militants.

    “We knew they were looking for a confrontation,” a senior military official said, speaking under military rules of anonymity. “We tried to make sure force was the last option. But we were not going to let them pass.”

    They did not have to let them pass. They could have crippled the ship. That would have positioned the Israelis as men of good sense. The suicide squad would have looked like the Keystone Cops.

    To see how badly Israel has stumbled, read the analysis by George Friedman of Stratfor, an outfit devoted to analyzing foreign trends. Friedman is a senior member of the Council on Foreign relations.

    [BF: I provide this story a few posts back already]


    Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation.

    Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations.

    The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

    The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked.

    Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

    Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm.

    Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel.

    Opinion in Europe will likely harden.

    And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

    Any pundit who publicly defends the military’s gunning down of 9 men armed with slingshots will from now on be identified as a “mindless apologist” — or worse, as a “paid apologist.”

    Netanyahu has defended the operation. I call this a self-inflicted wound. It is not a mortal wound, but it will cripple the nation permanently in the arena of public opinion.

    Like the original Israel, the State of Israel will henceforth walk with a limp.

    Alinsky 9, Netanyahu, 0.

    • Like I said the other day.

      What surprised me was that Israel fell for the trap.

      But that is what happens when you pound your chest and put on the air of the Alpha dog.

      When you are challenged you must act like the Alpha dog, even if it is not in your own best interest.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Could not have put it better myself. If they cannot outfox these boobs, they deserve to lose.
      Once the plan had backfired, where were the flash bangs and the nausea gas? No matter how well you can shoot, playing gunfight at the OK corral is never a good move if the Clantons don’t have guns.

    • This I agree with. Still, would there be a philosophical issue with the Seal Team damaging a ship in international waters?

  25. Interesting perspective:

    The culture of the West is adrift.

    The central institutions are under assault: the family, the churches, the banking system, the schools, the media, and the political order.

    Pessimism is pervasive, except in technology.

    But technology is decentralizing power and authority, which undermines the monopoly of discourse possessed by the elite.

    • What you have written here makes no sense to me at all.

      Try using common sense in your analogy sometime.

      Mull this over – We, the people, are getting tired of the lies and deceit within our governement so we are using the tools at our disposal (our computers, cell phones, ipods, etc.) to dispell those lies and deceits just like our ancestors did with the printing presses of the late 1700’s.

  26. Okay, here goes . . .

    If you had a friend that was being bullied and you stepped in and taught that friend how to defend himself, that would be the right thing to do. But then the bully went and got a whole bunch more of his friends – more than your friend could handle – what would you do? Would you just turn your back on your friend and tell him to kiss off? Or, would you continue to help your friend no matter what?

    I suppose what is being asked here is just how good are we in keeping our word?

    We gave our word to South Viet Nam and then we renegged on it and left them to the unmitigated slaughter at the hands of the Communists.

    We stepped in to help Afghanistan during the 1980’s, but then after the Soviets left that country in shambles we did nothing to assist them further so that country became the haven of Al Queda and the attack on NYC on Sep 11, 2001 was the end result.

    So now that we are in a financial quandry we should again renege on our word and let Israel fall to a so-called religion whose intentions would make Hitler dance with glee? Is that what it means to be an American? Should we let history label us as the ultimate back turners, the one people to whom honor and integrity mean absolutely nothing?

    Are we going give up everything that this nation stands for just so we can say that the rest of the world might like us?

    If that is your stance, then we do not deserve to be a nation at all.

    If that is our stance, then Barack Hussein Obama is right in that we should all just prostate ourselves at the feet of the Islamists and allow them to take it all . . . . .

    • G.A.

      Those who believe, like you and I, in this country, will step up and hopefully solve the future bad things. We can only learn from the past, understand the present, and prepare for the future. We are working hard to do all of this, everyday, despite our differences. There will never be peace on earth in my lifetime, so I prepare for war! What that war becomes is unknown, so prepare for the worst, and hope for the best! 🙂

      G!

    • Bottom Line says:
    • I think we have pretty much established what we are.

      Now we are just haggling over the price.

      I say, no more American lives spent to defend others when our own liberty has not been threatened.

      • Bottom Line says:

        JAC – “I think we have pretty much established what we are.

        Now we are just haggling over the price.”

        BL – That reminds me of a story I heard about Winston Churchill…

        Churchill, while intoxicated, asked a woman at a dinner party whether she would sleep with him for a million pounds. Her response was “Maybe,”. He then said “Would you sleep with me for one pound?” Her response to that was “Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?”. Churchill then replied “Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are, now we’re just negotiating the price.”

        • BL

          You nailed the analogy perfectly. Perhaps I should have said “revealed” instead of “nailed”, given the context.

          • Bottom Line says:

            JAC,

            I thought “nailed” was rather fitting.

            We’re being whored-out as a nation. Our pimp is the UN. Our so-called allies are our johns.

  27. USW….nice can of worms. There seems to be a lot of selective reasoning going on and the reality ignored. We can argue all we want about the United nations. IT is nothing and has been nothing. It will continue to be nothing. It is a toothless Iguana (does not rate a more aggressive animal). All this talk about International Law and intervening in disputes is, well, just talk. The United Nations has proven itself to be nothing more than a monumental waste of time and a “feel good” organization that is ripe with waste, fraud, and ego. The Courts in Hague….have no enforcement power. The United Nations has no enforcement power and both have been snubbed over the years numerous times. THE MOST RECENT is the failure to implement provisions of Security Council resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, everyone wants to “invoke” International Law and UN Resolutions…..when the reality of it…no one really cares. My respect for the United Nations left me completely in 1995 when the UN failed to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica killings in a refugee camp WE…yes, WE were supposed to protect by UN MANDATE. We were ordered by the very council that authorized us to NOT intervene and the reality and vision of it will never be forgotten. Worse than anything I saw in Vietnam and the irony of it was United States troops under the command of the United Nations. I hope that, in my life time, I never see another US troop under UN command. (I might add that the term UN Command is, well, a contradiction of terms.)Dread Pirate Mathius, drunk on grog, has more credibility than the UN and more bite.

    So, the reality of the UN….forget it. It is not a solution. (ergo: force)
    So, the reality of the Hague….forget it. It is not a solution. (ergo: International Law)

    So we look elsewhere. Unfortunately, the United Nations “recognized” Israel as a Nation (or whatever you want to call it) and did not recognize, at the same time, Palestine. Therein, lies the problem, in my opinion. We all know that the Jewish Nation and the Arab Nations will never live in peace. It matters not whether Israel goes back to the original boundaries. It matters not whether the Palestinian’s have their own boundaries. There will not be peace. It will not be allowed by the Arab/Muslim belief. So, in my opinion, that leaves Israel alone to defend themselves…whether we wish to help or not. My recommendation is that we leave them alone. Recognize and set Palestinian boundaries but you do not set them in the “politically correct” stance. I do not care if Hamas, etal,does not recognize the right of Israel to exist…let Israel deal with it and the world stay out of it.

    To the issue of the “attacks” in “International Waters” to enforce their blockade…I support it. Do what is necessary to protect your borders and people….it matters NOT what others say. Given the same circumstances, they would do the same. Hell, Turkey has been boycotting and placing embargoes on the Kurds for decades….and shooting them down. No one in the UN seems to care about that. I have read accounts on both sides as to the “legality” of the blockade and the enforcement powers of same. It means nothing…some law experts say it is legal and some do not. Some say it is piracy and some do not. If it means something…then why is not the United Nations, other than paying lip service, doing anything about it? Their inaction renders force and International Law moot. This leaves the countries as a unit to do something….so….let the “natural law” that so many like….do something. I will not hold my breath.

    As to the argument of keeping conquered lands…..that is up to the conquering force. If attacked, and in retaliation my counter attack takes land….I am keeping it and I will evict everyone from it….should I desire…or give it back…should I desire….but it is mine, if you attack me. I change my opinion if it is a power and territory grab…..such as the Soviet Union did and nothing was done to prevent that…except strongly worded condemnation. The precedent of doing nothing has already been set.

    So, take the training wheels off and let’s see.

    • Oh darn…I forgot….as to the Turkish/American activist? The lesson herein…..if you swim with sharks, expect to be lunch.

      As to the “hardening” of Turkey? So? Over the last 10 years, Turkey has turned decidedly more radical Islamic. The EU recognizes it… and will not let them in….or at last look, they were and have been on the “pending” list for 5 years… and even NATO recognizes it and wishes Turkey was not a member. Did not see one NATO ship escorting Turkey’s response, now, did we? I do not think you will ever see a NATO response other than being a loud mouth that has lost its effectiveness.

    • Murphy's Law says:

      The best thing posted all day on this subject……once again D13 crystallizes it perfectly. Well said.

      Murf

    • Sanity! Thank you!

    • D13

      Colonel, I must disagree in one important respect.

      International law DOES matter in that it represents the “common law” of nations.

      As such it forms a set of rules by which the action of nations are judged.

      The power of International Law is not in whether the UN or some other body can enforce it by force.

      It is in the ridicule and disdain that can be placed upon the guilty, or accused.

      It does have one little ironic characteristic, however.

      It is most powerful against the very nations most likely to try and adhere to it. Namely those who claim to be a nation of laws. We cringe and such criticism. Despite their bravado, I think Israel does also. Because one never knows what might build from international “disdain”.

      Those laws do matter to us, or at least they should. If we are to hold the torch of freedom for the world to see, then we had better be willing to live according to the moral and ethical standards needed to support that freedom. Do do anything else will bring outside ridicule and internal shame.

      But those who don’t give a damn, those for whom laws other than their own have no meaning, will not be affected without actual application of force.

      And in this regard you are correct. It is a toothless rabbit against the raging tiger.

      For the record, I for one am pretty sure I wouldn’t want it any other way. Can you imagine a world where the UN could muster a force against the USA every time the third world decided it wanted more of our grain or gold?

      Best to you and your family.
      JAC

      • Ok JAC….grab hold……..we actually agree, I think. I understand that International Law is supposed to represent the “common law” of Nations….but while, in theory, it should do that….it does not. It only represents law to nations that wish to adhere to this premise. I also agree that it forms a set of rules in which to be judged and that is just fine. However, the reality of it is….when a nation is “judged” and does not like it…they ignore it and say…”do something about it”.

        But it is like the sticks and stones theory…say what you want….heap the ridicule….then leave me alone because all you are going to do is call me a bad boy. It might have mattered in the past…but I submit that it does not matter now. I really think that we, and others, will use it to our advantage but without the means of enforcement……it means nothing.

        In the case of Israel, do you think that all these countries that are saying how bad they are…..the non Muslim countries….are really going to do anything other than yell? It makes great press and the bluster might impress someone…but it will not change Israel or world opinion because the rest of the world will do the same if the situation were reversed.

        I am totally amazed that South Korea has not retaliated at all and that shows weakness and the North will just get more emboldened, as they are, now claiming war because the South complained. There is going to be nothing done about this either and North Korea knows it. The North having so called nukes does not scare me at all.

        • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

          Nothing new there. As near as I can tell the USS Pueblo still sits in Pyongyang as a propaganda tool.

          The image of the paper tiger that we try to cultivate only comes back to repeatedly bite us in the ass.

        • JAC….got something else to ponder on. All of the talk on this blog about natural law, law of the universe, laws of nations, do not incite violence on innocent people, the many definitions of evil….etc. Talking points all….so, I have a question for you.

          I see four distinct areas that I would consider immediate because of the ramifications of not addressing it. These are NOT in a particular order.

          1) The Israeli/Palestinian Issue. It is a continuing issue that will go on forever and will possibly widen. It is not Israel’s issue alone. It is a regional issue and there is no consensus on how to resolve it short of condemnation and strongly worded memo’s. This could lead to a wider war.

          2) The North Korean Issue. An international team of investigators has concluded that it was, indeed, a North Korean torpedo from a minisub that sank the warship in “supposedly” disputed waters. We all know that this is bull shit. The world knows that it was a sinking of the sub and North Korea knows that all they will get is condemnation….verbally. This could lead to a wider war.

          3) Iran’s Nuclear Ambition Issue. Iran has consistently violated all the nuclear treaties, stalled inspections, changed records, flaunted the IAEA, and the United Nations. It now has weapons grade material for two weapons. This is known throughout the world. Everyone also knows what their intent is for their region. This could lead to a wider war.

          4) The Darfur Issue. Sadly, no one acres about this let alone even knows where and what Darfur is. This is the largest genocide occurring today and innocent civilians being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. Darfur has resorted to recruiting mercenaries once again as the measure to stop this Islamic take over…and that is exactly what it is. I will be 62 young years of age shortly and have been approached and I am surprised that USW has not been approached as yet. Central Africa is the largest takeover land grab that is happening before our very eyes…and nothing.

          Ok..so here is my question to you…and others, if they wish to contribute. This natural law theory or law of the universe theory…where things will take care of themselves or that the neighbors will unite and take care of their own without interference from governments…..

          The question….where is it? Now, is the opportune time to test this philosophical theory….so where is it? Here is a chance for the world to unite and do something since nothing is being done. Where is it?

          Jus’ wonderin’………

          • D13

            I have to run to see the therapist for a short bit and will try to post a solid response later.

            I was in fact trying to start an article on this subject just last night. Since it has been raised several times lately.

            I will say this for now. I think you are assigning much more to “natural law” than is perhaps possible by its very nature.

            The presence of evil does not negate the truth of “natural law” just as that truth does not eliminate evil from the world.

            A peaceful people that can not defend themselves will become slaves to those who are so inclined to enslave their fellow man.

            The TRUTH of the natural law concept of non-initiation of force is that mankind WILL NOT survive if he continues to wage war on himself over religion, territory, economics or to full fill the needs of some narcissistic potentate.

            While I am gone, perhaps you could pose a more specific question as to what it is you think Natural Law should be doing in these examples.

            Also, remember my question the other day about whether we are in fact capable of being civilized? Natural law is what you get after you answer that question.

        • D13

          Good Morning Colonel

          It appears we agree once again.

          Funny thing about “shunning” and “ridicule” as punishment.

          Its not nearly effective when the group being shunned doesn’t live in the same village and doesn’t need to deal with you anyway.

          I think there is one factor that does create some influence. To the extent that global outrage can create doubt about the legitimacy or efficacy of the government of the offender it can work to create change. If the citizenry feels the shame they may act.

          But when the outrage simply conforms to prior views of specific nations or groups of people simply trying to destroy you it will create anger and resistance, not peaceful change. In simple terms, it just sounds like more bitching from the same people who hate us for who we are.

          Now where have I heard that before?

          So perhaps we discover the proper role and need for the USA to be friends with a country like Israel. The day the big friend ridicules may be the day the citizens think twice about their govt’s action and force it to change.

          Otherwise I think it is inevitable that most will just ignore those rules they choose to ignore. I love the irony that the international community decides to embargo countries they feel violate the rules. Yet, according to traditional rules such economic embargo is an act of war in itself.

          I am not surprised that S.Korea has not retaliated. I am guessing many are sitting on them to prevent it. I think you are correct in how the nut job will view their inaction. I do wonder about his motivation. Is this needed to keep his citizens convinced they are at war and thus justify their starvation and control? Or is it simply his way to exert or project his delusions of power? Who, if anybody, is encouraging his behavior and why?

          I think perhaps it is not S. Korea that is being tested here.

          Top O’ the Day to you sir.
          JAC

          • JAC says: “I think there is one factor that does create some influence. To the extent that global outrage can create doubt about the legitimacy or efficacy of the government of the offender it can work to create change. If the citizenry feels the shame they may act.”

            D13 says: JAC…I have warned you repeatedly about making sense early in the morning. I think I just felt the cosmic force of implosion among many.

            JAC surmises: “I do wonder about his motivation. Is this needed to keep his citizens convinced they are at war and thus justify their starvation and control? Or is it simply his way to exert or project his delusions of power? ”

            D13 agrees: Seems to be his modus operandus all along. He has to deflect from his woes. But, I wonder………..will inaction spur him on? Interesting, no?

            • D13

              Short answer is YES, inaction will spur him on.

              I think it has so far and will continue, until he finds the breaking point.

              After all, what more can we do to him?

              I don’t think we are going to start bombing N. Korea over some “incident” with S. Korea.

              I do find it interesting that he seemed to tone it down after Bush insisted on the 6 party talks and China came to the table. I am misreading that?

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Being concerned about what the “AssClowns” of the UN think about us, is kind of a joke at this point. Same as being judged by Chris Mathews, or Maddow! Hah Hah Hah! I long ago gave up being concerned about what other people think of me or my actions. I think and ‘do’ as I see right and moral. Screw the clowns in Justice Robes who mutilate our Constitution to the point that it is now worth less than used toilet paper. Screw the clowns wearing robes in the name of religion who molest children or advocate killing innocent people. Screw the Clowns in our own government who daily place more controls on our lives. Screw the Clowns who wake up every morning trying to find new ways to SCREW US. America should do what is right and not worry about what other AssClowns think of us, but NO, this won’t ever happen because we are a country now run by ASSCLOWNS!

        There I feel much better now! Time to go to work, taking care of my own self without involving a bunch of ASSCLOWNS!

        • I’m taking up donations to get Puritan a mask of a clown for Christmas.

          Puritan, you had me laughing hard this morning.

          Its good to let the pressure off from time to time. Otherwise you blow a gasket.

          🙂 🙂

          • JAC…..sometimes it has good. I remember getting Ray so riled, he chopped wood for the winter…maybe three years worth, cut his grass, edged…the whole bit.

            But now, he has a youngster that takes his time….the saga begins. They grow up to be teenagers….and….they know everything.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Who would ever need to go see a shrink, when all they have to do is use the word AssClown to be ok again. (grin ).

  28. D13 and Murphy

    I just remembered that I forgot to update you on the Special Olympics results in Bozeman.

    I passed your well wishes and kick butts to young JAC.

    He had a great time, hanging with anyone but his folks. His sister was home and got to see him show his stuff. Extra special for the both of them.

    And for the not so little critter’s efforts?

    Bowling: 5th

    Soccer: Silver

    100 m run: Gold

    Upon his return home I asked him to clean off the table after dinner. Where upon I was informed that “Dad, you don’t tell Olympians what to do.”

    So being the student of logic that I am. I must therefore conclude that all women are in fact Olympians.

    🙂 🙂

    Best wishes
    JAC

  29. Mathius

    Just thought I would confuse your questions about land ownership a little further. Please note that the “territorial lands” on the following map predate the majority of the “treaties” with Indians that resulted in the American expansion beyond the Mississippi. These lands were transferred to the USA.

    So it kind of begs the question as to why the US Govt felt it needed treaties to secure ownership of land it had acquired from France, England, Spain and then Mexico.

  30. Not being a fan of either the state of Israel, or a fan of Islam.
    If push came comes to shove, I have come the conclusion that Israel is by far an away a better choice than the other.

    The reason is as below:
    The following was taken from an article in “American Thinker”

    Islam is the only major religion in the world that does not adhere to the Golden Rule to “love they neighbor as thyself” or “do unto others what you would have others do unto you.” Instead, the Koran exhorts Muslim to “slay the unbelievers wherever they find them,” “not take non-Muslims for friends” and “when ye meet unbelievers, smite at their necks.” Mohammed, whose very actions define morality for Muslims, encouraged his followers to deceive kuffars, or non-believers. Islamic doctrine explicitly supports the killing, insulting, torturing, robbing, beheading, enslaving, pillorying, and raping of non-Muslims.

     

  31. Mathius says:

    Alright, so here we are at 7:35 on day two of our discussion of Eretz Israel. I find that it is really impossible to get a sense of who is right and who is wrong if we cannot ascertain who is the legitimate owner of the land in question.

    If the Palestinians are the rightful owners, then launching missiles at the occupiers seems perfectly justifiable – after all, you are within your rights to shoot trespassers, are you not?

    If the Israelis are the rightful owners, then they are right to defend themselves and their land as they see fit – after all, you are within your rights to defend your home, are you not?

    As I see it, there are three schools of thought on the issue:

    A. God gave the land to the Jews therefore it belongs to the Jews. End of story.

    B. The US Weapon version (if I understood correctly): Regardless of who owned it originally, the land was acquired so long ago that the former owners simply need to get over it. This is the same reason why Mexico has no claim on Texas.

    C. The Black Flag version (if I understood correctly): Property ownership is an absolute right. Ownership can only be transferred willingly by the owner to the purchaser and may not be coerced by violence or threat thereof.

    We run into some serious problems with all three.

    A. God gave it to the Jews. But according to the Muslims, God then re-gifted it to the Muslims. How do you know that you are right and they are wrong? If neither side can prove what they say, then how do they justify their ownership is secular terms? Fail by appeal to authority.

    B. It happened so long ago, get over it. I like this one. At some point, we have to say that what’s done is done and move on. If ownership rights are permanent and survive indefinitely, then the legitimate owners of my house are the descendants of Native Americans. But what’s done is done and we took the land a dozen generations ago – it’s too late now to go back and address the wrongs of the past – where does it end?

    C. Absolutism. But here’s the fun one. Someone was the first person to claim that land. At that point, under this doctrine, the land became his. Irrefutably, morally, legally, inalienably, unarguably, absolutely, and indelibly. Period. The only way for him to lose his claim to that land was for him to willingly give it to someone else – whether by sale or inheritance.

    C begs some questions that I never received satisfactory answers to, so I will repost them here:

    1) Is the fact that you, personally, didn’t steal [your land] sufficient to assuage your morality despite the knowledge that it was, at some point, seized by force?

    2) Do you hold ignorance to be a defense – that is, if you are not 100% sure that it was stolen, you are morally justified in “owning” it? (Can you buy something from a known thief and say it’s ok because you don’t know that it was stolen?)

    3) If I steal your car and sell it to another man, surely I am immoral, but is he also immoral if he deliberately doesn’t ask any questions? Whose car is it at this point? Why?

    4) Who owns a specific point of land in what is now Israel? Is it the Jew currently occupying it? The Palestian who had it before? The descendant of the Roman before him? The descendant of the Hittite before him? The descendant of the Babylonian before him? The descendant of the Sumarian before him? The descendant of the unknown person from the times before the written word who was the first man to build a mud hut there?

    • Top O’ th’ morn to ya, Matt. Have you had your Red Bull yet? Such questions of thought this early…

      Thinking about ownership….hmmm. I guess the question that I would ask….is it pertinent to know this? I think that it is only pertinent to the aspect that if everybody was going to sit at the table and discuss this rationally….it might have a salient point.

      Question for you….don’t you think all of this is a cultural issue anyway? Do you really….down deep in your bones, to the bottom of your feet……..feel that if Israel were to agree to the original UN drawn lines and Palestine was given their lines……with a country and a recognized Nation……..that Kumbayah would be sung at the campfire? Does this not need to be answered first?

      (And, yes, I have a large Dublin DP sitting in front of me.)

      • Mathius says:

        (Mathius sips his Red Bull and ponders)

        No.

        The war is an excuse on both sides (see my post #6 above). The Israelis perpetuate it to keep their victim status. The Palestinians want it to provide an external enemy to explain why their populace is poor, uneducated and such – they point at Israel so that their people won’t turn on their leadership. This is deflection 101.

        No redrawing of maps will settle this. Want to settle this? Easy (and far cheaper): build roads. Lots of roads. Highways and freeways and surface roads and bridges. Then build infrastructure: cable lines and power lines and power plants and internet relays and police and fire stations and hospitals and parks. Finally, build schools – lots of schools: elementary schools, middle schools, preschools, high schools and community colleges.

        • You forgot the Red Bull consignment.

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            Forget that – give them a very large shipment of Dr. Pepper to help them get over their follow-the-leader mentality!

            • DPM…I notice your eye patch is a little worn and frazzled from your journey through the desert….New patches await you and your crew and Dread Pirate Parrot in Laguna Madre and a whole new passle of Washington insiders for your…ummm…target practice.

        • Also, read post 6…..In answer…ok..I will think on that one….some good points.

        • Not sure how building stuff fixes this, can you give a sample of your reasoning? It seems like it, too, would have a lot of ownership issue questions, and it is a little tricky under fire…

          • Mathius says:

            Roads make it possible for trading.

            Education makes it possible to be prosperous.

            All the rest of it makes a nation a global trading partner with a decent standard of living.

            Wealthy and happy nations (except Americans) do not attack other nations.

            Why are you going to blow yourself of to spite your religion’s enemy when you have a successful business trading with the Israelis?

            • There are a lot of paths to trade, not sure more roads will help (no pun intended). The key is to open trade tho, thats good.

              Education is good too, tho still not sure building schools is the way to make that happen….

              We don’t attack when wealthy and happy either, we just look happy. We are actually pretty pissed off.

              Overall, I see your theoretical logic tho. 🙂

    • Mathius

      I think you err if trying to turn this into just a debate about ownership of real estate.

      You see the land can not be “owned” by the Jews or the Arabs or the Palestinians, at least in modern context (say the last 3000 years).

      The land was and is owned by Individuals, is it not.

      I think you may be confusing the three positions a bit as well.

      God gave the area to the Jews. Could simply mean this is the area I want you to live and I will protect you against aggressors if you follow my rules. God did not convey title since title to land is of no concern to God.

      USW’s view is not that far back in history. He is talking about since Israel was created.

      Flag’s view is based on “individual” ownership and does not fit the discussion of “Governments” waging war over territory.

      I am not sure where you are going with your thinking. Are you trying to blend the philosophical with a solution to the problem? Or are you trying to find answers within the existing context? Or are you simply using the current context to try and find contradictions in the philosophy?

      Now I have a much BIGGER question for you my young “token”. It goes to the Colonel’s question.

      WHY ARE THE JEWS SO DESPISED WITHIN THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT?

      Quite frankly, I just don’t get it. I understand how one group is ostracized by others for political or religious gain. Tribes against tribes, etc, etc. But the Jew is the one group that is used as the Bogey Man, time and time again across many regions.

      Is this “historical” feeling toward the Jews not at the root of the current situation?

      • It’s a cultural thing.

        (1) Jews tend to isolated themselves from the general society they live in. They do not easily assimilate. They inter-marry within their religion and look down on marriage with gentiles.

        (2) They hold the “chosen people of God” as a truth – and they act like it, alienating -literally- the rest of humanity.

        (3) They hold no loyalty to anyone except within their group. The concept of Patriotism is foreign. Example: An American Jew will undermine America in his support for Jewish Israel.

        (4) They have a very strong family structure and education. They are taught well the ways and means of business and work ethic, and therefore tend to be more successful then the general society they live within. This creates jealously, as others start believing God has blessed them a lot more than themselves – making the Jews easy targets during social upheaval.

        • Finally, BF and I agree on something….it is cultural…therefore…not reversible.

          • D13,

            Probably not – but it is tolerable.

            • Mathius says:

              HAHA.. BF, I wrote basically the same exact thing below..

              Great minds, I guess..

            • D13,

              Tolerable in the sense that I have found the Jewish community peaceful and keep to themselves.

              In the manners of business, they are shrewd, but honor agreements.

              They demand loyalty -first and foremost- from Gentiles working for them, and reward loyalty spectacularly loyalty with competence.

              For whatever reason, Israel and those in control of it are atypical of the general population. It is a bizarre circumstance that I have a hard time reconciling – a generally very peaceful people but Israel so violent and evil.

              • Ok….can understand that one…and agree.

              • PS:

                My most favorite client is a Jewish family business of significance, so my personal experience comes from the interactions with them.

              • Understand…have quite a few myself…gotta admire the work ethic and the loyalty.

              • I agree with your cultural perspective, and I agree that the nation of Israel is out of character, even with many of the population there, but they support it because of the loyalty. More importantly, I believe, because of constant violence. Many who went to Israel when it was founded were from areas where they were heavily persecuted. They did not go just for religious reasons. Many jewish people stayed in the areas they were because they were happy there. The bulk of those who moved did so to find a better place. They found that they were hated and threatened and even attacked. So, like a person who used to be peaceful but has been subjected to constant abuse for a long time, they react with overwhelming violence. Is a woman who gets smacked around by her husband, but is never under threat of death, justified in blowing his head off? I say yes. And I think that is why Israel is what it is. They have taken it too far, perhaps, and perhaps this is NOT tolerable, but it is understandable.

      • Mathius says:

        My problem is that either the land is occupied by its proper owner(s): A or B. Or it is occupied by an illegitimate power: C. If A or B then the actions of Israel, while not smart, are at least proper. If C, then they are immoral and improper.

        How can we debate if they are right to attack their neighbors preemptively if we cannot determine if they have a right to the land that they are defending?

        As to why the Jews are hated throughout Europe… it’s a good questions.

        Originally, they were feared by the Greeks and Romans for bringing monotheism as a viable threat against the established religions.

        The Christians came along and blamed the Jews for killing Jesus. This was perpetuated for political expedience.

        At some point, the Church outlawed usury in Europe, but the Jews, not being Christians, were not bound by this law. As such, the Jews garnered immense power and wealth and were despised for that.

        Something interesting happened to the Ashkenazi Jews along the way: the weak and stupid died out. And a cultural adaptation also took hold: to wit, education became a prized asset. A Jewish proverb states: It is right that you should sell everything you own for your daughter to marry a learned man.

        So now, with only the smartest and most educated of the Jews left, they garnered a reputation for cleverness that made people nervous and uncomfortable. In a time when barely 5% of the non-Jewish population could sign their name, Jewish societies had 100% of males reading and writing (it is a required right of passage into adulthood) – how were they supposed to compete?

        With the Inquisition, the Jews were the obvious target, not only were they wealthy, blatant heretics, and easy to spot, but their responsibility for the death of The Savior was all the justification anyone needed to target them.

        With the Germany, it was easy to turn people against the clever Jews. This also had the added benefit of garnering a lot of confiscated loot for the Nazis.

        And so on and so forth..

        But what this story misses is that the Jews fed into it. We have a well deserved reputation for arrogance and elitism (I am especially guilty of this). This make us less likable. Our historically closed tribal mentality and our pig-headed obsession with the mantle of being “the chosen people” is very off putting. It is easy, especially in the days of yore, to see the Jews as a threat.

        Hope that helps.

        Bonus fact: 1 in 3 Europeans blames the collapse of the banking industry on the Jews.

      • I am with Matt on this tho, even in terms of individual ownership, there are Jews that have lived in those houses for some time as well, and there are no houses for them to return to. I keep asking “which houses and are they vacant” for a reason.

    • Mathius,

      Why do you insist in abstracting the issue?

      People live on the land – it doesn’t matter what abstraction on a map you want to call it.

      The solution is simple once you get your brain untwisted.

      Let the People live in their homes.

      • Mathius says:

        I steal your pirate ship – perhaps under threat of violence.

        I sell your ship to JAC.

        Is the ship now the rightful property of JAC?

        • Mathius,

          Did I survive your attack?

          If I did not, the ship is JAC’s.

          If I did – watch your back while I enforce upon JAC 🙂

          • Mathius says:

            Did you survive? Yes, you cowered in the corner and pleaded with me not to hurt you. So I took the keys to your ship and left.

            What does that mean: “while I enforce on JAC”? Note that JAC paid for it, he has a receipt. Can you prove 100% definitively that you are the rightful owner? He lives on the ship. As you said: “Let the People live in their homes.”

            • Mathius,

              My initials are craved into the mast.

              • Mathius says:

                And that proves what, exactly? I’ve seen people’s initials carved into trees in public parks – does that mean those people own the park?

                You have no absolute proof, so JAC is justified in keeping the ship.

                JAC: If you head to the US Mexican border on the East Coast in your new ship, you can meet up with the Dread Pirate and D13 for a raucous party.

    • USWeapon says:

      I hate it when God re-gifts. Sometimes he doesn’t even bother to change the tag.

  32. Mathius says:

    A conversation from a long time ago. I have not gone back to search the archives, but I’m sure I can if anyone challenges the meat of my synopsis.

    Mathius: Imagine that you were walking around a found a pile of gold. Would you be justified in picking it up and claiming it as your own?

    Black Flag: No. It belongs to someone.

    M: Who? There’s no one around.

    BF: Whoever owned it. Just because they put it down or misplaced it does not forfeit their ownership rights.

    M: What if they’ve forgotten about it?

    BF: It’s still theirs. You can’t take it.

    M: I forgot to mention, there is a corpse next to the pile. In his dead hands, he has a receipt for buying. Since the owner is dead, can you take it now?

    BF: No. It belongs to his heirs.

    M: I also forgot to mention that there is also a note lamenting the fact that he has no heirs to give his pile of gold to. The note is signed in blood and the signature matches the drivers license in his pocket. The name and credit card match the billing information on the receipt. It was definitely his gold and he definitely has no heirs. Can you take the pile now?

    BF: No. It is on someone’s land – so I guess it would become their property.

    M: I forgot to mention, you are walking around on the moon. No one owns the land.

    BF: Well then I guess you can take it.. but are you sure no one owns the moon…?

    ——————-

    A conversation from yesterday (somewhere far above):

    M: (something along the lines of) The land belonged to the Indians and they never legitimately sold their ownership. It was taken by force or threat thereof.

    BF: […] Which treaty is the Rightful treaty? I dunna-know…(shrug)

    M: […] It seems you are hiding behind willful ignorance – that, in the absence of conclusive evidence – you are justified in possessing land which was stolen. […]

    BF: No, but the other way – the onus is upon those who make claims against my peace.

    M: So possession is 9/10’s of the law?

    BF: It depends on what the other tenth is..

    ——————

    OK. So, Mr. Flag saw no contradiction between these two conversations, but I do. I see that, in the first, he demands absolute proof that something has no legitimate owner before he can acquire it. In the second, he is willing to buy land that he has reasonable cause to believe was stolen – thus never actually buying it from it’s real owner, but claiming it is now his.

    Am I alone in seeing this, or can someone please clarify the situation? I am a simple man and perhaps the logic is simply too much for my feeble mind to follow.

    • Crap……first JAC and now you….(More sounds of cosmic implosion resonating)…

      Ok…so you have had your Red Bull. Yes, I see contradictions….but that is nothing new as BF and I rarely agree on anything. BF simply tells me I am a dolt and stupid because I do not see it his way….I can deal with that….but….you want a clarification? I am sure that you will get one sometime today.

      I have come to the conclusion that anarchy and philosophy do not good partners make….as there is no answer OR the answer is always a question.

      (damn….head spinning on that one)

    • Mathius,

      Please prove the Indians owned the land.

      • Mathius says:

        I can’t.

        But I just can’t get around how you required absolute proof of non-ownership in one scenario and in the other you are demanding absolute proof of positive ownership.

        Which is it? Either the onus is on the acquirer to be sure title is clear or the onus is on seller to provide a clear title.

        If the former, then you cannot have bought your land under your own guidelines.

        If the later, then buying a car you believe to be stolen is an ethically acceptable action.

        Pick one.

        • Mathius,

          Where neither is likely or possible – that is, the land is Terra Nova – it is “occupier tends to win”.

          • Mathius says:

            Just because you can’t prove that something has an owner or who that owner might be doesn’t seem to matter to you in your original case – the fact that you are not convinced that it has absolutely no claimants means that it’s sacrosanct and you cannot touch it. Now you are saying that if you cannot prove it either way, it’s the occupier’s by default.

            I am done arguing this. You are contradicting yourself.

            • Mathius,

              Nope. You are simply argument hopping while pretending the time in the air makes each argument valid at the same time.

          • Mathius says:

            One last thing..

            Black Flag said
            June 8, 2010 at 10:19 am

            […]
            Willful ignorance is no excuse.

            Just because you don’t know, or can’t know who the rightful owner is, you cannot act like there is none and claim it for yourself. Willful ignorance is no excuse.

            • Mathius,

              I can claim it if there are no other claims.

              Like finding a 10-bill on the street….

              • Mathius says:

                Sigh.. you are a walking contradiction today.

                Now you’re saying you can just pick up a 10 dollar bill that you find in the street.

                Before, you demanded absolute proof that there was no owner of the pile of gold.

                Why now is the barrier so much lower? Where are your absolutes.

                Remove your foot from the bear trap and we can try this again.

              • USWeapon says:

                Doesn’t that ten dollar bill belong to the city, since they own the street?

                Or the owner. Just because he misplaced or lost his ten dollars doesn’t mean he forfeits his claim to it.

                That you cannot see the contradiction here is troubling.

      • If you did not prove that the land was free and clear of ownership before you bought it, then you violated what you told Matt about the gold.

        Now that you have bought it, perhaps you can put the onus on the person claiming it is not yours. So:

        In the Pirate ship case, it is up to you, then, to prove to JAC that the ship was yours and that you did not relinquish ownership willingly. How would you do this? What if you, confident in your ship’s defenses, put your title and so forth in it, and Matt, wise to this fact, destroyed such documents. This leaves you with no proof or record. Are you justified, then, in using force on JAC?

        I would think not, I would think, at best, that you could use force on Matt to recover the value of the ship, and hope he has not spent it.

  33. I don’t think any arguments here will actually do any good to persuade anyone to flip on this issue. I merely want to point out one thing.

    The bleeding heart argument about the poor homeless Palestinians doesn’t hold a lot of water with me considering they had a state of their own when Israel was created, but lost it because of their own aggression.

    I have yet (though I have not read the entire discussion here) to hear someone say, “yes, the US should give its land back to the Native Americans because it is rightfully theirs,” and so can give no credence to their arguments for a Palestinian state replacing Israel just because “finders keepers.”

    I would be fine with reintroducing a two state solution, except it certainly won’t help. There is so much anger and hate that neither side will be willing to accept the other. I say shame on both sides for being so belligerent.

    Sadly, this leaves us with no solution. Taking away the state of Israel and making it Palestine will just reverse the present situation, except for the worse, because the rest of the Middle East will not be on the side of the persecuted Israelis.

    An interesting tidbit: A friend of mine was talking with me about this conflict. He is on the side of the Palestinians getting “their” land back. At one point he said, “Israel is just like the Nazis.” Then later, “we should send them all to Antarctica.” Hmm… anyone see a parallel and contradiction here?

  34. Jon,

    lost it because of their own aggression

    SAY WHAT?!?!

    I think you are a bit out of historical touch, sir!

    can give no credence to their arguments for a Palestinian state replacing Israel

    And who said “replace Israel”??? Are you sure you’re in the right post-thread?

    Your friend has it accurate – Israel is acting like the Nazis. But I don’t think the solution is to ship them anywhere – they’ll just cause the same problems as they are doing where they are now.

    The solution is simple: USA withdraw its support from Israel. 48 hours later, as the Israeli economy collapses, they will be a bit more eager to accept international efforts and the conditions they imply.

    • Good morning, BF. Question….

      BF says: –“as the Israeli economy collapses, they will be a bit more eager to accept international efforts and the conditions they imply.”

      D13 asks (non sarcastically): What international efforts? Are you referring to UN mandates and resolutions as international efforts or is there something else I am missing.

      • D13,

        Yep, and/or European demands and accommodations.

        Under the “Beggars can’t be choosers” theory – whomever Israel “needs” come from will dictate the tune.

        Unlike America, most of Europe is not so blinkered regarding Israeli actions. Change would occur overnight.

        • Why Europe……because of proximity?

        • Another question for you….

          Do you think that the United Nations and NATO refuses to act because of the United States? There seems to be no conflict resolution other than a lot of yelling and protesting and filing of mandates…no action. Why, do you think?

          I looked at the vote records and there is no veto by the US…no vote taken…or I cannot find it.

          This brings a second question….do you think that the United States would intervene militarily on behalf of the Israelis IF the United Nations or NATO sent warships or troops?

          • D13,

            Re: UN and NATO limited actions

            Yes, no doubt about it. US is bigger than everyone else combined…US momentum in any particular direction tends to overwhelm all resistance.

            Re: Veto

            What vote are you talking about? The US has vetoed more Security Council resolutions than all the permanent members combined – and 95% on behalf of Israel.

            Re: Which side would the US pick?

            Boy – that’s a tough one.

            NATO is a big deal for the USA – a cornerstone in the “Great Game” offsetting Russia. To run foul of NATO…hmmm….

            Yet, I cannot see USA supporting any NATO response to an Israeli attack.

            • BF says: “as the Israeli economy collapses, they will be a bit more eager to accept international efforts and the conditions they imply.”

              D13 says: No vote in particular….I have looked at the votes of the last year and I looked for a resolution vote last week and found none…but I may not be looking in the right place for last week.

    • Jon? Perhaps you confuse me with someone else?

      SAY WHAT?!?!

      I think you are a bit out of historical touch, sir!

      Perhaps I am? I don’t know, let me check…

      From wiki…

      The Jewish community accepted the plan,[69] but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.[70] On December 1, 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets.[71] Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but they gradually moved onto the offensive.[72] The Palestinian Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.[73]

      David Ben-Gurion proclaiming Israeli independence on May 14, 1948, below a portrait of Theodor Herzl
      On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel.[74] The following day, the armies of five Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq—attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War;[75] Saudi Arabia sent a military contingent to operate under Egyptian command; Yemen declared war but did not take military action.[76] After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established.

      No, no, looks like I had it right. The Israelis (appeared) to be accepting of the two state solution. It was the Arabs who could not stomach it. I know you think the Israelis were the aggressors, but the Arabs were the ones who attacked first. It appears you are the one who is out of historical touch, sir.

      And who said “replace Israel”??? Are you sure you’re in the right post-thread?

      Sorry, am I missing the big picture here? I thought you were a proponent of removing Israel from what you call Palestine. Is that not replacing the state of Israel with a state called Palestine?

      • Jon,

        So your argument stands like this:

        Another country rips open your country, steals your land, imports a bunch of Russians and Germans, and demands you accept it!

        Okie Dokie!

        And, of course, you don’t highlight at all the Irgun, Haganah or Stern Gang massacres …. its all just one way for you, right?

        So, nope, you’ve got a lot wrong, sir.

        And, you obviously haven’t read a post I’ve written above. Do please show me where I’ve said “remove Israel”.

        • Give me a break.

          I agree that I would not stand for the international community carving up my land to give to another people. That said, if Germans and Russians were given a state in the heartland of America, I would fully expect them to defend themselves against any belligerence from displaced Americans.

          BF > “And, of course, you don’t highlight at all the Irgun, Haganah or Stern Gang massacres …. its all just one way for you, right?”

          JB > “I say shame on both sides for being so belligerent.”

          Please don’t infer from my lack of attacks against Israel that I believe they are and have always been in the right. If anyone on this site appears to be one sided, I think it would be you. I pointed out that a two state solution wouldn’t work and the Arab world’s belligerence against Israel and you assume I think they can’t go wrong…

          BF > “And, you obviously haven’t read a post I’ve written above. Do please show me where I’ve said “remove Israel”.”

          I have read some of your posts, I admit not all, but the tone I get from you is Israel is evil, blah, blah, blah. They have no right to the land they now own, blah, blah, blah. They are such horrible people, blah, blah, blah. Excuse me for inferring.

          Plus, did you read the last paragraph from my last post?

          “Sorry, am I missing the big picture here? I thought you were a proponent of removing Israel from what you call Palestine. Is that not replacing the state of Israel with a state called Palestine?”

          • JB,

            I think I answered that question above already.

            ““Sorry, am I missing the big picture here? I thought you were a proponent of removing Israel from what you call Palestine. Is that not replacing the state of Israel with a state called Palestine?””

            No. see above.

      • JB

        Take a look again at the map above.

        While it says “states” there never was an “official” Arab or Palestinian STATE recognized.

        But the UN did formally recognize Israel shortly after.

        The TRUTH as I see it JB is that neither side accepted the UN and UK declarations from the get go.

        Wiki says the Jewish Community did. But Ben Gurion and other leaders are known to have had other plans. They needed a beach head and the UK gave it to them along with the other allies who comprised the REAL UN at that time.

        The reaction from the Arabs was understandable and predictable. This is where the analogy of what would USA citizens do if the UN suddenly declared New Mexico, Arizona and Texas as “AZTLAN”.

        So the obviously predictable reaction was used to justify expansion of the “Jewish State” almost immediately.

        I have come to believe that the hard core leadership in Israel want the entire area shown as “Palestine” on the above map to be the Nation of Israel. They also want a “Jewish State”. Which means they have to find a way to make sure they are not a minority within their own country. This is, in my view, the real rub with the “actual” Palestinian people. It is why they have been pushed off their land and out of their houses, and they know it. It is not to preserve Israel, it is to allow a “Jewish State” to maintain control within the area claimed as Israel.

        As for the Arabs, they want Israel removed from the map. Not the extermination of Jews, but the return of the geography to the various Arab nations to which it belonged before. They now want an “Islamic State”, with Jews in the minority.

        So what you have in a nutshell is the makings of a Religious War. And that is why WE should walk, no, run away as fast as we can.

        Best to you and yours
        JAC

        • Your reasoning sounds so reasonable.BUT I find that I don’t really blame Israel for wanting a Jewish controlled state-I believe they have multiple reasons to feel it is necessary for them to remain free. I also really believe that enough Arabs want to wipe them from the face of the Middle East not just take away their majority, to accomplish that feat if the US walked away. I believe this feeling or belief, right or wrong, is the basis for what some believe is the unreasonable support of Israel. The Arab population, whether it is fair or not, have other options but the Israelis either hold onto this land or become the same as slaves. I find that no argument put forward by anyone so far on this blog or anywhere else has changed this gut reaction. As long as the rockets and suicide bombers persist I don’t think I will change my mind.

          • V.H.

            I understand your reaction. It is perhaps the majority thought among Americans, especially given our cultural bias to support those we see as the “underdog”.

            But to validate your “gut reaction” we must find history that supports it.

            Lets assume that it is OK for them to want a “Jewish State”. They were given such a state. But the problem is that the land you think they are defending is not the land they were given.

            It is the land they took by force. The Arabs might have gotten over the original “Jewish State” (speculation by me) but they will never get over the fact that Israel then expanded and took lands that were set aside for “Palestine”.

            The Israelis could return the lands they took and not have to fear living like slaves. It is their refusal to return this land that in fact creates the threat. At least locally. I do not deny there are some in that part of the world who would use Islam as a means of rationalizing the destruction of the granted “Jewish State”. But again, they are empowered by Israel’s refusal to give back the land they took by force.

            I can’t help but notice how many Americans think Israel is defending “its” land against attack. Not realizing that the land was not theirs in the first place (see map above). I hear regular folks and talking heads on TV/Radio talk about Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. When I was growing up the Capital was Tel Aviv and everybody knew it.

            As more and more of us repeat the claims that Jerusalem is the Capital and that the lands occupied by Israel are their lands, then we must realize that Israel’s goals and propaganda have worked. At the Arab world will see us as part of the conspiracy.

            Let me ask you one V.H. Why do you think the Jews need a State to remain free?

            Remember, we are talking here about the establishment of a place where Jews can migrate FROM other parts of the world. Places where they are already free.

            • I believe they need a state to be free in the Middle East-a country that they have a long history of being a part of-but because of their religion they have been treated unfairly. Would the world be better off if a state wasn’t given, possibly, but it was and it is truly hard to go back and undue a wrong. So what is the answer-On one side-Israel should give back any land they acquired through war. Perhaps they should but in the long run I truly believe it would make no difference.The other side-Hamas and others should quit attacking Israel and Israel would not have a basis to keep the land. I see fault on both sides-but because of my above feelings I normally side with Israel.

              • V.H.

                Review your position in terms of power.

                Hamas et al exists because of Israeli OFFENSIVE actions.

                To claim that Hamas et al must FIRST stop is a concept that refuses to acknowledge the cause/effect.

                If you refuse to acknowledge the cause and effect and demand the effect to “stop” without removing the cause – is that not an irrational belief?

    • BF, I am not JB

      Incidentally, tho, I have been asking for a while for specifics about which houses and where the lines are. Which houses need to be given back to the Palestinians?

  35. Mathius

    Regarding the issue of Property Ownership.

    This is a human concept and construct. It evolved over time.

    The problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the effect of time and evolution.

    You are taking a concept of later development and then trying to force it backwards in time to a point beyond which it was developed. You then try to use this to prove a contradiction occurs today because I can not prove ownership before the concept existed.

    Restart your thinking from the beginning. Back to when humans roamed these lands before the concept of Deed and Title were developed. Now go forward until you come to that time when such concepts became real and accepted by society. There is the source of your original “owners”.

    By the way. The acquisition of Indian lands by the USA was much more complicated that “sign this treaty or we will kill you”. All tribes were not the same regarding their view of land ownership. The reasons for treaty were different in the early years, where land was granted, as opposed to later where it was pretty much taken.
    Just wanted to make sure we didn’t fall into stereotypes on that one.

    Fire away my statist friend. 🙂

    • Mathius says:

      You are taking a concept of later development and then trying to force it backwards in time to a point beyond which it was developed. Natural rights are not developed. They are or they are not. If it is true that here, now, today, I can own property, then it is true that the Geico caveman could own property then and there.

      The ways in which we have codified ownership has certainly evolved. Today, my deed is recorded in the office of the county assessor. In Ye Olden Times, it was sufficient that you built a fence around your land. Before that, it was probably sufficient that you simply made it known to your neighbors that this was your land. Just saying “This my forest. I hunt here. You no hunt!” would be the equivalent of modern day ownership.

      So, at some point, somewhere back in the sands of time, someone set up a home right on the spot you built your home. And he worked the land and hunted the forest. He may never have had a written deed, but it was his land as surely as if he had. If someone had demanded he leave, he would have said “no, this is my land.”

      And there you have it. From there the land was stolen or coerced through threat of violence*. From there, it made its way to you. If property ownership is a natural right, the land justly belongs to the descendants of that first man. If it is a social construct, then it belongs to the generally accepted owner: you.

      So which is it?

      *Yes, I suppose it is possible that some land was acquired and peacefully passed all the way down to you from the original owner. But this is a 10,000 year progression of custody transfers and it seems unlikely that it was not at one time or another stolen. For the sake of conversation, let’s assume that yours is not one of these extremely rare instances.

  36. D13,

    Vetoes

    Year: Resolution Vetoed by the USA

    # 1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
    # 1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
    # 1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
    # 1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
    # 1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
    # 1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
    # 1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
    # 1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
    # 1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
    # 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
    # 1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
    # 1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
    # 1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
    # 1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
    # 1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
    # 1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
    # 1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
    # 1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
    # 1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
    # 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties’ exports.
    # 1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
    # 1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates.
    # 1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
    # 1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
    # 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
    # 1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
    # 1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
    # 1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
    # 1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
    # 1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
    # 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
    # 1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
    # 1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
    # 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
    # 1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
    # 1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
    # 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
    # 1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
    # 1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
    # 1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
    # 1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
    # 1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
    # 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
    # 1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
    # 1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
    # 1981 Condemns Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.
    # 18 resolutions. 1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
    # 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983). 1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
    # 1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
    # 1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
    # 1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
    # 1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
    # 1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
    # 1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
    # 1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
    # 1982 Development of international law.
    # 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
    # 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
    # 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
    # 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
    # 1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
    # 1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
    # 1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
    # 1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
    # 1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
    # 1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
    # 1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
    # 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
    # 1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
    # 1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
    # 1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
    # 1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
    # 1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
    # 1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
    # 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions.
    # 1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
    # 1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
    # 1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
    # 2 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
    # 1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
    # 1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
    # 1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
    # 1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
    # 1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
    # 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
    # 1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
    # 1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic “Zone of Peace”.
    # 1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
    # 1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
    # 1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
    # 1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
    # 1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
    # 1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
    # 1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
    # 1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
    # 1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
    # 1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
    # 2 resolutions. 1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.
    # 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999). 2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
    # 2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
    # 2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia. The US of A: helping to make the world a fairer place.

    • BF

      Once again you weren’t listening.

      Of course maybe I wasn’t but I understood the Colonel to be talking about the recent condemnation of the ship boarding.

      Point was that while everyone is screaming, nobody has asked for any formal votes against Israel and the U.S. has not threatened to veto any.

      Same for NATO.

      • My question was related to the recent issues in the last year and more specifically in the last 10 days. I did not find any. I found the same ones that BF found…but nothing recent and none asked. I was interested in what Obama would have done…

        Your observation was correct.

        D13

        • Funny-I looked it up-wasn’t overly surprised -guess what-there are no UN resolutions against the Palestinians-none-zero-zilch-nada- Why would anyone question Israel’s dismissal of this organization.

          • V.H.

            Very interesting brain twist.

            Everyone is yelling at you to stop – and you interpret this to be “Gee, they are ALL wrong, and I’m right so I’ll ignore them”

      • JAC and D13,

        Do you guys get any information at all without me???

        U.N. Security Council Condemns ‘Acts’ in Israeli Raid

        UNITED NATIONS — After hours of negotiations, the United Nations Security Council early on Tuesday condemned “acts” resulting in the deaths of nine civilians in Israel’s attack on an aid flotilla trying to breach the Gaza blockade.

  37. Cyndi P says:

    Off topic

    Will she see Nazis? Oh, the violence of the right-wing extremists, lol.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/08/pelosi_heckled_at_dc_event_over_lack_of_federal_funding.html

  38. Big deal on the news…both Fox and Cnn,,,,Reuters just admitted to cropping out the weapons ion the hands of the activists during the Israeli boarding of the ship. Also cropped out an Israeli soldier being held down and stabbed and admitted to cropping and editing movie film. Said it was done in the normal editing of film and pictures.

  39. A Puritan Descendant says:

    From JB’s post 33 above as he is making a point >

    ” “yes, the US should give its land back to the Native Americans because it is rightfully theirs,” ”

    Now me >

    I own land in Western Massachusetts with deeds going all the way back to the Indians in the early 1600’s when the English first arrived. And, I have never heard a single Indian claim the original deed to the English was faulty in any way. So, No, my land in western Massachusetts is in no way going back to the Indians.

    I own land in Northern Maine which no Indians ever claimed was their land. Probably way to cold for any to even have claimed it to begin with.

    So to use such a broad brush in claiming we effectively stole the land from the Indians pushes a button with me, as I bet children are taught the same in school.

    Was any land stolen from the Indians in this country? Probably, but only if the Indians claimed ownership in the first place, but to carelessly repeat false information about America’s history over and over is a good thing ONLY if you hate America to begin with or you just don’t know better.

    Now today I bet 90% of Americans and the rest of the world think this whole country was stolen from the American Indian.

    After Indian King Phillips war in 1675 against the “rightful deed holding English of New England” who would think that the Indians would ever be treated fairly again. They sold us land and then demanded it back with blood. Try farming for survival while ducking arrows.

    There are more than one version of the truth here. Only one is being repeated today and accepted by the ignorant.

    Yes, I have brought this up before, but I find it hard to allow the truth to die.

    This site by USW is called “STAND UP FOR AMERICA” !

    • Mathius says:

      We can stand up for America without whitewashing the sins of our past.

      We saw the Red Man as inferior, sub human savages. We murdered, raped and pillaged on a heretofore unimagined scale. It’s a big country full of a lot of different tribes – some sold out peacefully to be sure. But more than a few sold out after we slaughtered them like animals and threatened to finish them off.

      I don’t know where you got this rosy picture of Manifest Destiny, but it’s not accurate – we were butchers. They fought back and committed plenty of atrocities as well, but that does not excuse our part in all of it.

      Think about it this way: you’re the inhabitants. You have vast fertile lands that have belonged to your tribe for centuries. Someone comes along and you “trade” it all away for practically nothing and then willingly move to tiny “reservations”. Does it like a key piece of the puzzle is missing in this scenario? As Judge Judy would say: “it doesn’t make sense. And if it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true.” Does it make more sense if we factor in that failure to “sell” would result in annihilation?

      Was any land stolen from the Indians in this country? Probably Probably?? Probably?? You have got to be kidding. Probably? I don’t think there’s a single American history scholar out there who doubts this. Read this and some of the supporting links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Wars

      Next, maybe you’ll tell me that I got it wrong about slavery, too and that blacks chose slavery willingly and were treated well and given the respect accorded to any other human being. In fact, they weren’t even slaves at all since they were all given decent living wages, their own homes and could leave any time they liked. That whole thing was a big lie concocted by northerners to justify the War of Northern Aggression.

      • Mathius says:

        Major Ethan Allen Hitchcock was among those who found the remains of the Dade party in February. In his journal he wrote a haunting account of the discovery, then vented his bitter discontent with the conflict: “The government is in the wrong, and this is the chief cause of the persevering opposition of the Indians, who have nobly defended their country against our attempt to enforce a fraudulent treaty. The natives used every means to avoid a war, but were forced into it by the tyranny of our government.”[47]

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Believe what you wish Mathias. I have the Deed.

        • Mathius says:

          I’m sure you do. I do not doubt that a piece of paper was signed giving title to your land from the Native Americans to the US.

          But I think in more than a few instances, the choice was sign this or die. And that, sir, is theft, plain and simple.

          But a gun to my head, and I will sell you my home for pennies, but it’s not a legitimate sale.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Native Americans to the ‘Engish Settlers’ not ‘US’ it was early 1600s.

            • Mathius says:

              Fair enough.

              And I’m sure the English settlers sat the Indians down, explained that they wished to purchase the land – and what this meant. Then, without coercion, offered an exchange of goods or services in exchange for the Indians selling, which they accepted, in turn singing the deed.

              And even if this is true for your specific piece of property, I assure you it is not true for the whole of the modern US.

              Adding, the land may not even have been the legitimate property of those Indians since it was probably stolen at some point from another tribe – remember that the continent was first settled sometime during the last ice age – it is unlikely that the tribe who sold you your land were the original, direct and legitimate owners of that piece of land for 15,000 years.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Mathias says >

                “And I’m sure the English settlers sat the Indians down, explained that they wished to purchase the land – and what this meant. Then, without coercion, offered an exchange of goods or services in exchange for the Indians selling, which they accepted, in turn singing the deed.”

                I say > That is exactly what happened. (See Phynchon Court Records, and multiple other sources including the DeedS.)

                Mathias says >

                “Adding, the land may not even have been the legitimate property of those Indians since it was probably stolen at some point from another tribe – remember that the continent was first settled sometime during the last ice age – it is unlikely that the tribe who sold you your land were the original, direct and legitimate owners of that piece of land for 15,000 years.”

                Understood. But you are being Silly with a capital ‘S’. Reading old documents along with the details and applying common sense will allow you to see the whole picture. I am justifying nothing for either party. I just want the complete picture to be seen. Rather than “We stole the land from the Indians”. The Puritans from the late 1600s New England would GAG if they heard that statement.

              • Mathius says:

                Perhaps they would. But for every one of those good and enlightened souls, there were a dozen who were happy to rape and pillage and “buy” land at the point of a musket.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Sri, That is BS

              • Mathius says:

                Let’s ask SK Trynosky Sr.. he was around back then..

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Matt

                In a previous incarnation sir. You young snapper whippers don’t know diddly squat.

                Back when I was in C. Company of the 7th, with Custer, there was a lot of sympathy with the red man. Even the General himself was known to not only respect their abilities as fighters but their right to a homeland and a way of life.

                Like it or not, we were tasked with enforcing political decisions. Accomplishing that mission led to unfortunate actions like Sand Creek. Sir, I can tell you , the troopers did not enjoy it, not one bit.

                Until Custer, the wars went on from late spring to late fall with everyone taking the winter off. It was Custer’s strategy to go after them in the winter when they were lagered in. It worked.

                When I was a boy I was told stories of the trail of tears when the Cherokee nation was force marched half way across the country. Now, that was a death march and it was done to a tribe that was one of the few that voluntarily assimilated and adopted the white man’s ways. Curse Andy Jackson for that one, racist that he was. The one good thing that came out of it for me was the making of David Crockett a personal hero. He stood for the rights of the Cherokee.

                Garry Owen Sir !!!

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        “Next, maybe you’ll tell me that I got it wrong about slavery, too and that blacks chose slavery willingly and were treated well and given the respect accorded to any other human being. In fact, they weren’t even slaves at all since they were all given decent living wages, their own homes and could leave any time they liked. That whole thing was a big lie concocted by northerners to justify the War of Northern Aggression.”

        3 of my grandfathers fought to free the slaves. Ransom Smith, Charles Smith, and Francis Downing.

        • Mathius says:

          I think my folks get here too late for that one..

          Curious, if you know, did they fight “to free the slaves” or “to save the union”? Not that they couldn’t have fought for both causes at once, but I read a lot where they say freeing the slaves was entirely secondary to preserving the union. Just curious.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            I think Ransom joined at a young age just so he could afford to eat. He and his father were both injured at Gettysburg. Francis patroled the northern border with Canada.

            • Mathius says:

              The border with Canada, huh? See any action against the velociraptors up there? I know they played a large role in the French and Indian War..

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                I still have not taken the time to learn why they would waste resources up on the border. But I am sure they had there reasons.

              • Mathius says:

                I just told you. There was a legitimate threat from raptor mounted Canadians. You can’t leave your flank unprotected.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I think it is important we all get an education which shows a complete picture.

          Not just one side from the modern liberal American Left. Students today are brainwashed with BS, or at least a one sided view from the Hate America Crowd which runs most of this country’s education system. How can a young mind ever let go of such unjust visions drilled into their skulls at such an early age? I doubt many can. They may as will be robots with no ability to see past what they have been programmed to see.

          • Mathius says:

            And perhaps others of the Love America Crowd would have us see only rosy pictures of America’s past. We can ignore her great sins:

            -Wiping out the Native Americans and stealing – yes, stealing, their land. (at least from many tribes, though not all)

            -Slavery

            -Japanese internment camps

            -McCarthy

            These are just perpetuated by the liberal Hate America Crowd, right?

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              I think anyone’s past would be filled with evil deeds if they all came to light. My ancestors evil deeds are all to well documented. Times were much different than they are today. Things which shock us today may have been the norm back then. For centuries most every man carried a weapon and was expected to use it. We all come from a very harsh past. Picking out one line of people as being better than another may make you feel better but it is the wrong thing to do.

              • Mathius says:

                Nobody is saying one line of people are better better than another – I am of the opinion that many people are violent shameless opportunists with underdeveloped senses of empathy who commit evil acts with a senseless abandon that you would find horrifying.

                Others are good people.

              • Mathius says:

                Evil is evil. Saying that times were harder and that men were expected to use weapons is no excuse for why killing people and taking their lands.

                And this did happen. On a sizable scale. We may disagree on just how big that scale was, but there is no denying that it was far larger than either of us would be comfortable with.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              You forgot “BP” 🙂

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Matt,

              Just how does the McCarthy thing find its way in there?

              While the guy was a lush and fast and loose with numbers, he was factually correct. The Soviets had infiltrated the US Government. What were the names of those documents finally released after the cold war was over, “The Verona(sp.) intercepts”?

              Alger Hiss was guilty and so were the Rosenbergs.

              And one more thing, Since Papa Troyanovsky got here in 1905, some 15 years after the closing of the west and Wounded Knee and some 40 years after the end of the civil war, I, my aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces, children and grandchildren, all refuse to accept any blame or responsibility for slavery or the Indian Wars. Therefore be a little more judicious in the use of the “we”.

              Back in mother Russia I suspect we were not much better than slaves ourselves.

              Having said all the above, isn’t it nice that we all live in a country that does acknowledge its mistakes and tries to rectify them.

      • Mathius

        As much as I sympathize and can understand the pain of my red cousins, Puritan is correct in his claim against you.

        YOU sir, are stereotyping and generalizing beyond all belief.

        To start with Manifest Destiny came along, long after many of the lands east of the Mississippi had been transferred to US citizen or govt ownership.

        Remember the Map I posted last night. I pointed out the dates of territories east vs west of the Mississippi.

        You accusations of broad scale slaughter and Rape is factually wrong, let alone insulting to both sides. Most of the death of Indians was caused by disease without any deliberate act by the Europeans. We learn about the small pox infected blankets but that is at the end of the Plains Indian wars. Long after most Indians had died from the imported diseases.

        The concept of land ownership was in fact strong among the eastern tribes. The biggest problem was that one tribe might sell the land and then another would claim they didn’t agree. Then the English would start negotiating with the rest.

        • Mathius says:

          Smallpox was one thing.

          I do not think that all of the land was stolen. But I do think a large portion was.

          I also think history is written by the victor. And we we the victors. So it seems likely we would have written history in a way that favors us.

          Some people were good. Some people were bad. Some people bought the land and treated the Indians as equals. Others killed the men, raped the women, and took the land.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Mathius says >

            “Some people bought the land and treated the Indians as equals.”

            This certainly was the case in Springfield, Mass. in the 1600s until Indian King Phillips war in 1675.

            They lived amongst each other. They had squabbles settled FAIRLY in court. See Pynchon Court Records.

            • Mathius says:

              HUZZAH! That is truly admirable. I applaud them. I do.

              But what about cases like the Seminole Wars where enemy leaders were captured under a truce flag and summarily executed? And where our own soldiers acknowledge that the Indians had made every attempt at avoiding a fight but that the government was giving them no choice? Or where several different tribes from around the country were rounded up and shipped off to – GASP – Oklahoma? Or how there were dozens of documented cases of tribal leaders claiming that they were forced to sign treaties? I could do this all day.

              Being good is one thing. But it does not excuse or write-off the bad, evil things we have done.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Mathias says >

            “Some people were good.”

            I say >

            I would not be here if an Indian named “Toto” had not warned my ancestors of King Phillips warriors getting ready to burn down Springfield. I lost 2 ancestors in that burning but without Toto’s warning it would have been many more.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              If it interests you, search Google books for “Thomas Cooper” “Thomas Miller” and “Springfield” You will get plenty of hits.

            • Mathius says:

              And that’s wonderful. He did a good dead (though if you asked the Indians, they might have said it was traitorous..).

              Either way, my underlying point stands – we, the English settlers committed unspeakable atrocities and stole broad swaths of land. Not all of them. But many. And far, far more than should have been tolerated by a supposedly civilized society.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                I can see that my original post was truly pointless. Have a nice evening, because I will.

              • Mathius

                Like the legends of the wild west, I think your version of history is the “embellished” one.

                Atrocities were committed by both sides.

                You will find instances of bad behavior by US troops and militia. You will find examples of good behavior.

                The whole history of US and Indian interactions is much more complex that what you describe.

  40. Today in History:

    June 8th, 1967 – Israel attacked America – USS Liberty

  41. Israeli Troops Issue 10-day Eviction Orders To Palestinians In Jordan Valley

    By Saed Bannoura – IMEMC News – June 08, 2010

    Five Palestinian families in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern part of the West Bank, received eviction orders from the Israeli military on Sunday, just days after Israeli settlers set up an illegal outpost on the families’ land and took over a water well in the area. The eviction orders told the families to vacate their homes and land within ten days so that Israeli troops could occupy it.

  42. Sorry-different subject-but thought it was interesting-wonder what the outcome of this will be.

    China says North Korean border guard shot and killed 3 Chinese last week

    Published June 08, 2010

    BEIJING (AP) — China said Tuesday that a North Korean border guard shot and killed three people and wounded a fourth on the countries’ border last week, prompting a formal complaint from Beijing.

    Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said a North Korean border guard last Friday shot four Chinese residents from the northeastern border town of Dandong, apparently on suspicion that they were crossing the border for illegal trade.

    “On the morning of June 4, some residents of Dandong, in Liaoning province, were shot by a DPRK border guard on suspicion of crossing the border for trade activities, leaving three dead and one injured,” he said at a regularly scheduled news conference. He used the acronym for North Korea’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

    Qin said China has formally complained to North Korea over the incident.

    “China attaches great importance to that and has immediately raised a solemn representation with the DPRK. Now the case is under investigation,” he said.

    Qin did not give any further information. There have been some reports in South Korean media on the incident, though North Korea has not acknowledged the shootings.

    Dandong is a major shipping point and rail link for goods going into and out of North Korea from China.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/08/china-says-north-korean-border-guard-shot-killed-chinese-week-676306674/

  43. Mathius

    Ok, lets try to unravel this issue a little. I’ll start by trying to address your points. If that doesn’t work I’ll try a different approach but for now lets look at your post from above @ 35.

    ” Natural rights are not developed. They are or they are not. If it is true that here, now, today, I can own property, then it is true that the Geico caveman could own property then and there.”

    For now we will accept that a Right to property is a natural right and thus existed for all humans at the time of their birth. As has been mentioned before, we did not create these rights but we “discovered” them late in our evolution. So in this respect you are correct, the caveman “could” own property.

    But the cave man DID NOT own property. The cave man did not know he could “own” property so he simply “occupied it”. Now as time passes man decides that there need to be some rules about the occupancy thing so as to prevent complete destruction of the clans. The common understanding develops that those who are occupying and using a particular piece of land are the one who control that land. Lets assume the even call in ownership. But this supposed “ownership” ends when one of two things happen. The man/clan abandons the land or some other group comes and takes the land. For the ultimate measure of “ownership” is occupation and that requires an ability to defend against those who wish the land for themselves.

    “The ways in which we have codified ownership has certainly evolved. Today, my deed is recorded in the office of the county assessor. In Ye Olden Times, it was sufficient that you built a fence around your land. Before that, it was probably sufficient that you simply made it known to your neighbors that this was your land. Just saying “This my forest. I hunt here. You no hunt!” would be the equivalent of modern day ownership.”

    So as I just explained this is basically true, but not totally accurate if you want to use it in an argument against theft in modern times. Because while it was ownership to them, it would not have been ownership to us. They were still using occupancy as the validation.

    “So, at some point, somewhere back in the sands of time, someone set up a home right on the spot you built your home. And he worked the land and hunted the forest. He may never have had a written deed, but it was his land as surely as if he had. If someone had demanded he leave, he would have said “no, this is my land.””

    Lets assume the mysterious farmer existed in the “olden” times. Yes, it was his land by affect of his occupancy and tilling of the land. He would in fact defend it, and I might add, had a right to such defense. But here is the key. If the other guy won the fight or the farmer left. He no longer “owned” the land.

    “And there you have it. From there the land was stolen or coerced through threat of violence*.”

    Perhaps it was taken, or perhaps it was abandoned and then claimed by another. In either case, that farmer no longer owned that land. The new occupants owned it. I am not sure it would be considered theft in those days, but we can use our modern term if you like. It doesn’t change because the farmer NEVER actually OWNED the land in the context that we understand ownership. He had a right to own it but did not know that “owning” existed yet.

    “From there, it made its way to you. If property ownership is a natural right, the land justly belongs to the descendants of that first man. If it is a social construct, then it belongs to the generally accepted owner: you.”

    So along comes a bunch of new men with different ideas and knowledge. And they find the thief farmer on the land. They ask him to sell his land. He doesn’t know what that means. They explain that they will measure the land and draw lines on paper that represent the land he owns. They will record the sale on paper and file it away in a box in a wooden lodge house. He agrees to sell them this land that he now knows he “owns”. The first deed for this surveyed parcel is recorded and the rest is history.

    Now lets assume that the group of new men ask to buy and the thief farmer says hell no. Keeping with tradition you will have to kill me or run me off if you want my land. The new group obliges him and fight a war against him and all his neighbors. Finally the natives have had enough and agree to give up the land in exchange for a small parcel of sagebrush and alkali and the promise of no more war. According to the rules of the natives this land was taken the old fashion way. The new guys earned it. The first deed is then recorded for the parcel I later come to own.

    Until the first deed was recorded there was no “legal owner” who had claim on that land by right of inheritance. Because the relative never occupied and used the land in question. He/she never exercised the right to “ownership” discovered by the “civilized” man.

    Now here is the funny part. When we say we stole the land from the natives that is only true from OUR perspective. From theirs we were just another invader. The land was theirs to defend and keep or to lose. They lost. Except in the east where the tribes were more agrarian and stationary. And here the Europeans recognized the “traditional common law” version of ownership. The one of “occupancy” versus “ownership”. While no Indian could show them his parcel, the tribe could describe their lands. The Europeans then started haggling for the land and then put to paper surveyed descriptions and recorded deeds for the land they acquired.

    So our fore fathers respected their own common law interpretations when dealing with the natives of a strange new land. This European common law concept was similar to the one the native had here. Its yours as long as you are living on it. You leave it is not yours, regardless of why you leave.

    “So which is it?” The right to own property is a natural right. The method we have used to establish ownership has changed over time. Until the advent of survey and recorded deed that proof required occupancy. Land could be taken by conquest if possible. The victor then took ownership, as long as they also occupied the land. Our European ancestors acquired the land from the natives who “occupied” the land at the time they arrived. They acquired it from the legal owner according to the laws and customs of BOTH sides, ironically.

    So you see, the answer to your question is BOTH. But it depends on what point in the time continuum you wish to stop and pass judgment.

    “*Yes, I suppose it is possible that some land was acquired and peacefully passed all the way down to you from the original owner. But this is a 10,000 year progression of custody transfers and it seems unlikely that it was not at one time or another stolen. For the sake of conversation, let’s assume that yours is not one of these extremely rare instances.”

    As I have just explained, “stolen” is being used here in the modern context. That of a “civilized” man. The “savage” man did not recognize such theft nor such right of lasting ownership. So whether the land was taken by force is irrelevant. Under the rules in effect at the time there is no one who can lay claim on my property as the occupant transferred his/her ownership to the USA in exchange for the “documented right” to occupy land on Flathead lake and Glacier Park, along with promises of long term care and protection.

    Well there you have it. I hope this helps clear up things a bit. I think your argument is based on the misapplication of our modern concepts to the pre-modern period. That and confusing a right to something with the execution or realization of that right. While property ownership is a universal right, we have not always used the same method of establishing and validating or recognizing that ownership.

    In short, the right to something doesn’t make something a reality or fact. That is where our laws come to play.

    I stand, well actually sit, awaiting your next wave.

    JAC

  44. TexasChem says:

    Well looks like I missed out on much of the debate ehh!?!

    The geographic territories of this area of the world have been under Babylonian, Assyrian, Achaemenid, Macedonian (Seleucid), Ptolemaic, Roman, Byzantine, Sassanid, Ottaman and the ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Hauran, Edom, Nabatean Judea, Moab, and Canaan!Approximately 10,000 square miles!

    About 61 B.C., Roman troops under Pompei invaded Judea and sacked Jerusalem in support of King Herod. Judea had become a client state of Rome. Initially it was ruled by the client Herodian dynasty. The land was divided into districts of Judea, Galilee, Peraea and a small trans-Jordanian section, each of which eventually came under direct Roman control. The Romans called the large central area of the land, which included Jerusalem, Judea. There has never been a “Palestine” government.Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in about A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem, following the failed Bar Kochba revolt.The name Palaestina, which became Palestine in English, is derived from Herodotus, who used the term Palaistine Syria to refer to the entire southern part of Syria, meaning “Philistine Syria.”He intended to erase all Jewish claim to this land. Most of the Jews who continued to practice their religion fled or were forcibly exiled from “Palestine” at this time.There is no such thing as a Palestine ethnic class.Get it BlackFlag?The arabs that live in Palestine are Syrian, Jordan, Iraqi and so forth!Mostly Jordanian.

    When Israel was formed the geographic landmass known as “Palestine” was under British control from WWI.In 1920, Britain received a provisional mandate over Palestine, which would extend west and east of the River Jordan. The area of the mandate (see map at right) given to Britain at the San Remo conference was much larger than historic Palestine as envisaged by the Zionists, who had sought an eastern border to the West of Amman. The mandate, based on the Balfour declaration, was formalized in 1922. The British were to help the Jews build a national home and promote the creation of self-governing institutions. The mandate provided for an agency, later called “The Jewish Agency for Palestine,” that would represent Jewish interests in Palestine to the British and to promote Jewish immigration. A Jewish agency was created only in 1929, delayed by the desire to create a body that represented both Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. The Jewish agency in Palestine became in many respects the de-facto government of the Jewish Yishuv (community).

    The area granted to the mandate was much larger than the area sought by the Zionists. It is possible, that as Churchill suggested in 1922, the British never intended that all of this area would become a Jewish national home. On the other hand, some believe that Britain had no special plans for Transjordan initially. In his memoirs, Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in Amman, wrote that “There was no intention at that stage [1920] of forming the territory east of the river Jordan into an independent Arab state.”

    What it all boils down to gentleman whether you want to believe it or not, is that the Holy Wars “crusades” have never ceased since the advent of the Islamic intent to conquer the entire known world begininng when Muhammad in AD 633 when he claimed to receive revelations whilst alone in a cave and began a religious movement which later became politically and military charged in conquest against the non-Muslims of Arabia.

    There is really no doubt in my mind that western powers wanted Israel in existence to lay claim to the holy lands.The powers that be have always understood the dangers of what Islam truly would be to western civilization if left unchecked.Think about it. 🙂

  45. TexasChem says:

    During the time (not so long ago) that the Americas were being colonized the belief of “civilized man” at the time did not include what they deemed “savages”.This included anyone that was pretty much lived in a tribe and did not hold christian beliefs.The black man, red man, even yellow men were not considered a part of the same civilized culture as our European ancestors and hence “savages”.

    The cultural mindset of the world has changed tremendously and I believe mankind has flourished with what western civilization has brought forth.It’s not perfect by any means but at least we do not live in poverty stricken conditions fighting over who gets to eat the next lizard we run across!

    Stop beating the white man up already.There is no need to feel guilty over past transgressions.Thats what it is, the past.Learn from the mistakes of our ancestors and strive to do greater deeds than have already been accomplished!Jeesh.

    I grew up near a reservation and have many red man friends! 🙂
    I believe they enjoy the comforts of civilization as to having to go out and hunt with flint weapons!They are just as americanized as I am!Humanity will not become an elightened people without the effort needed and demanded to become so.

  46. Mathius and others interested in the discussion of Indian treaties and laws of property ownership.

    There is much more here and I urge everyone to take the time to read the following document.

    Then remember that this was first written and adopted about the same time the American Fur trappers were spreading across the west. The Mountain Man/Fur trading period.

    Now think of how “primitive” we consider that period in history and now read the following:

    http://www.commonlaw.com/Cherokee.html

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Far Out ! Is it for real ? I read it quick and will read it later when I have time. It looks like the Cherokees had slaves and would not teach them to read or write.

      October 21, 1841.

      An Act prohibiting the Teaching of Negroes to Read and Write.

      Be it enacted by the National Council, That from and after the passage of this act, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons whatever, to teach any free negro or negroes not of Cherokee blood, or any slave belonging to any citizen or citizens of the Nation, to read or write.

      And maybe we should add this to Section our own constitution. Maybe SUFA’s ‘BS’ debaters would begin to use some integrity in their arguments, rather than behave like slimey lawyers trying to con a witless jury. >

      SEC. 9. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this Nation.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Should read > And maybe we should add this Section to our own constitution

  47. Sunshine says:

    I have to take the side of Israel. The Bible says that G-d gave the land to Israel. Israel only took back a small portion of what they were originally given by Him. I live near the Mexican border in AZ. More and more I see a correlation of what we ask Israel to do and what is happening to us. We ask Israel to stand down and, to cede this bit of land, or that stipulation. Now I watch in my own country as an entire state is literally given to another country. Whatever we ask Israel to do, is being done right here. At least I can respect Israel for having the courage to defend their borders without the “political correctness” that we are hobbled by. This really came home to me when I saw that the Border Patrol fired on people who were throwing rocks at them while trying to cross the border illegally. And who are they blaming for being in the wrong? Not the people committing the illegal acts; but those who are just trying to do their job and enforce our laws. While I mourn for any family who must endure a loss of a loved one, I simply can not say that we should let everybody break the law because I don’t want to see them get hurt. That is ridiculous. It’s an upside down world.

    • Cyndi P says:

      Hi Sunshine,

      I made a similar observation somewhere in the comments here. If the Palis get their demands granted, watch for the Atzlan movement to gain momentum. Maybe the two are somewhat connected in their ideaology and certainly their tactics. Time will tell.

      I agree with you all they way.

    • Sunshine,

      So if I pull up a paragraph out of my Holy Book that says your house is mine, can you tell me you will be leaving so I can take it?

      • TexasChem says:

        Nope, cause Sunshine shares the same holy book as I do. I and others that share the same idealogical beliefs wouldn’t allow it.I would tell you to go find a home in one of the other 54 countries that share your holy book.

        • TexasChem,

          So your “holy book” is as irrelevant as mine. Therefore, it holds no basis of any claim upon someone else’s house.

          • TexasChem says:

            I enjoy being a free man.My holy book condones that existence peacably in society.Does yours?Right or wrong, good or evil is the issue here BF.I make that statement based upon the modern day intepretation of the faiths in direct example of the lifestyles both choose.

            • TC:

              All religious texts, in one manner or another, provide a series of ideas that offer an ordered society.

              Most of those have discovered that prohibiting the initiation of violence manifests the most sustainable form of social order.

              Of that group, almost all of them disdain government to its core as an institution that destroys social order.

              Of that same group, almost every one of them have been perverted by government to become a tool for tyranny.

              Your religion sits firmly in this latter group. It is not alone, either.

    • Sunshine,

      Besides tthe fact is that the Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the biblical Hebrews. The Ashkenazi are descended from Khazars who converted to Judaism about 800AD, then later migrated into Russia and Poland.

      • TexasChem says:

        Not all Muslims are Arabic either.

        • Texas Chem,

          True, but they aren’t trying to seize Arab territory either.

          The Ashkenazi Jews are the founders of Israel – to claim they have some historical right is a fallacy. They are not the “historical” Jew of the region.

          It would be, as you pointed out, equal to a bunch of Muslim Filipino’s demanding a Philippine Nation-state encompassing Jerusalem because they happen to be Muslim. No one would accept that reasoning, yet you among others offer that reason regarding Jews.

          Bizarre.

          • TexasChem says:

            The British took the Levant (I refuse to call it Palestine any longer to give credence to the fallacy the Muslims portray that their exists a Palestinian ethnic peoples that are not Arabic transplants from Jordan, Iraq and Syria.) by right of conquest after WWI when the Allies kicked the Ottaman Turks asses and drum roll…..basically gave it to the Jewish peoples.Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked the state of Israel in the Arab/Israeli War of 1948 when Israel was formed.A majority of Arabs left of their own volition.Some were forced that is true but hrmmm lets see how old would they be today if they were 18 when they left? 80 ehh! Those you say have claim to this land are no longer alive!

            Israel wants to secure their borders now to stop immigrating Muslims because the Israeli are not as stupid as the rest of western civilization which allows the Muslim to flood into their countries and by sheer number, control government from the ground up.Beginning at the community level.Exactly what is happening in Africa and Europe.Let’s not beat around the bush here BlackFlag.

            • TC:

              I refuse to call it Palestine any longer to give credence to the fallacy the Muslims portray that their exists a Palestinian ethnic peoples that are not Arabic transplants

              Then, as usual, you ignore history.

              Even the Romans called it Palestine.

              • TC:

                by right of conquest after WWI when the Allies kicked the Ottaman Turks asses and drum roll…..basically gave it to the Jewish peoples.

                First of all, they PARTITIONED the place post-WORLD WAR TWO – so you’ve jumped a couple of generations.

                Second, they gave nothing to the Jewish people.

                Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked the state of Israel in the Arab/Israeli War of 1948 when Israel was formed.

                They attacked those that invaded the lands allocated to the non-Jews in Palestine.

                It was the Haganah that started the offensive, not the Arabs.

                A majority of Arabs left of their own volition.

                Your sense of “own volition” is bizarre. To you, a gun in your back means “you left on your own”.

                you say have claim to this land are no longer alive!

                Those that founded the Kingdom of Israel have been dead for 2500 years.

                By your measure, they have even a far worse claim – in fact, none at all.

                Israel wants to secure their borders now to stop immigrating Muslims because the Israeli are not as stupid as the rest of western civilization which allows the Muslim to flood into their countries and by sheer number, control government from the ground up.

                I agree. It is a purposeful pogrom to displace people from territory, called “Ethnic cleansing”.

                As such, it is a war crime.

                I am surprised you admitted it.

              • TexasChem says:

                I’ve already explained WHY the Romans called it Palestine BF in an earlier post.

  48. USS Liberty


    “The ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than America.

    Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal.

    If America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.”

    – Undersecretary of State George Ball

  49. The Jews had a massive territory to call their own

    Why some Jews would rather live in Siberia than Israel

    Birobidzhan, in the Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia’s far east, drew Yiddish-speaking Jews before Stalin turned on it. Refugees are beginning to return from Israel.

    ….

    Granted, Stalin tried to wipe them out (hence the mass migration to Israel…..)

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0607/Why-some-Jews-would-rather-live-in-Siberia-than-Israel

  50. Video reporting the killing of the teenage American

  51. Cyndi P says:
%d bloggers like this: